data that AGEN1884 augmented vaccine responsehave reported responses in primates;

clinical data on safetyour dose escalation and preliminary efficacy of AGEN1884, which supported our expectations of the safety profile;

that we observedimportantly, a complete response in a compassionate use settingour 1mg/kg dose cohort in a patient with advanced angiosarcoma, who was unresponsive to prior therapies;

data demonstrating that AGEN2034, a novel human IgG4 anti-PD-1 antagonist antibody, inhibits PD-1 binding to PD-L1metastatic endometrial cancer.  This is an unusually exciting finding based on precedence.  Outside of melanoma, there have been only four reported CRs in patients treated with first generation anti-CTLA-4 (Yervoy®) and PD-L2, resulting in enhanced T cell responsiveness in vitro as well as in a non-human primate model;

that AGEN2034 combined effectively with AGEN1884, a human IgG1 anti-CTLA-4 antibody, anti-TIGIT or anti-LAG-3 to further enhance T cell responsiveness;

that AIM can predict immunogenic peptides containing neoantigens and tumor specific phosphopeptides to develop immunogenic vaccines; and

clinical data demonstrating ASV can effectively deliver antigens and induce an anti-tumor immunogenic response and pre-clinical data revealing that these vaccinogenic responses are optimized with combination checkpoint modulating antibodies.

our and our partners’ ability to successfully develop, manufacture, and commercialize product candidates;

the scope, progress, results and costs of researching and developing our future product candidates and conducting pre-clinical and clinical trials;that we develop or may in-license;

the timing of, and the costs involved in, obtaining regulatory approvals for our and our licensees’ product candidates;

the cost of manufacturing;

the costs involved in preparing, filing, prosecuting, maintaining, defending and enforcing our intellectual property rights;

the costs associated with any successful commercial operations; and

refinance

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

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

From time to time, we may publish interim top-line or preliminary data from our clinical trials. Interim data from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available. 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. As a result, interim and preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. In February and March 2020, we reported positive interim data from our lead trials of balstilimab and zalifrelimab. These results may not be indicative of the final results from the study, and the final results may not support a marketing approval. There is no guarantee that either balstilimab monotherapy or balstilimab/zalifrelimab combination therapy will receive marketing approval in any jurisdiction, and failure to achieve marketing approval for either of these programs could have a material adverse impact on our business. Any adverse differences between preliminary or interim data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects.

The number of product candidates that we are attempting to simultaneously advance creates a significant strain on our resources and may prevent us from successfully advancing any product candidates. If due to our limited resources and access to capital, we may prioritize development of certain product candidates, such decisions may prove to be wrong and may adversely affect our business.

We are currently advancing multiple immune modulating antibodies, vaccines and adoptive cell therapies (through our AgenTus subsidiary). Simultaneously advancing so many product candidates creates a significant strain on our limited human and financial resources. As a result, we may not be able to provide sufficient resources to any single product candidate to permit the successful development and commercialization of such product candidate, causing material harm to our business.

If, due to our limited resources and access to capital, we prioritize development of certain product candidates that ultimately prove to be unsuccessful, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential or a portiongreater likelihood of success. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities.

20

We may not be able to advance clinical development or commercialize our cancer vaccine candidates or realize any benefits from these programs.

The probability of future clinical development efforts leading to marketing approval and commercialization of Prophage vaccines is highly uncertain. Prophage vaccines have been in clinical development for over 17 years, including multiple Phase 1 and 2 trials in eight different tumor types as well as randomized Phase 3 trials in metastatic melanoma and adjuvant renal cell carcinoma. To date, the only marketing approval for Prophage is in Russia where commercialization of the approved product was unsuccessful. All of our indebtedness;currently planned trials involving Prophage are intended to be sponsored by third parties, and there is no guarantee that they will occur at all.

sell, out-license,Our current clinical trial plans with Prophage vaccines entail one government sponsored IND in which we provide support and product supply. For third-party sponsored trials, we lack the ability to control trial design, timelines, tumor tissue procurement and data availability. For example, in January 2017, we announced a clinical trial collaboration with the NCI, whereby the NCI is conducting a double-blind, randomized controlled Phase 2 trial to evaluate the effect of Prophage vaccine in conjunction with Merck’s pembrolizumab on the overall survival rate of patients with ndGBM. In addition, the Phase 2 trial of Prophage vaccine in combination with bevacizumab in patients with surgically resectable recurrent glioma that was being conducted under the sponsorship of the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, a cooperative group of the NCI, has been closed. Our other cancer vaccine programs (ASV and PSV) are in Phase 1 and pre-clinical development, respectively, and there is no guarantee that they will successfully advance in and through the clinic. ASV also utilizes QS-21 Stimulon, and any inability or delay in securing adequate supplies of the adjuvant could have an adverse impact on the program or otherwise disposedelay timelines. Current and future studies may eventually be terminated due to, among other things, slow enrollment, lack of assets;probability that they will yield useful translational and/or efficacy data, lengthy timelines, or the unlikelihood that results will support timely or successful regulatory filings.

Our synthetic Heat Shock Protein (“HSP”) peptide-based platform is in early stage development, and there is no guarantee that a product candidate will progress from this platform.

In June 2014, we reported positive results from a Phase 2 trial with HerpV^TM, a vaccine candidate for genital herpes from our synthetic HSP peptide-based platform. The Phase 2 trial met its formal endpoints, but subjects were not followed long enough to determine whether the magnitude of the effect on viral load would be sufficient to significantly reduce the incidence, severity, or delayduration of herpetic lesions or reduce the risk of viral transmission. Although we have not advanced this program into a Phase 3 trial, we initiated our ASV synthetic cancer vaccine program based on our prior findings with this platform. We initiated our first clinical trial for our first AutoSynVax product candidate in 2017 and reported safety and immunogenicity of the vaccine at CIMT2018.  Although we have planned expenditures onto initiate a combination trial with ASV and one or more of our antibodies, the timeline is uncertain and there is no guarantee that we will be able to do so at all. Furthermore, it is possible that research and discoveries by others will render any product candidate from this platform as obsolete or noncompetitive.

Risks Related to the Commercialization of Our Product Candidates

If we are not able to obtain, or if there are delays in obtaining, required regulatory approvals for our product candidates, we will not be able to commercialize, or will be delayed in commercializing, our product candidates, and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.

Our product candidates and the activities associated with their development and commercialization, including their design, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale, distribution, import and export are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory agencies in the United States and by comparable authorities in other countries. Before we can commercialize any of our product candidates, we must obtain marketing approval. Except for Prophage in Russia, we have not received approval to market any of our product candidates from regulatory authorities in any jurisdiction and it is possible that none of our product candidates or any product candidates we may seek to develop in the future will ever obtain regulatory approval. We, as a company, have limited experience in filing and supporting the applications necessary to gain regulatory approvals and expect to rely in part on third-party contract research organizations (“CROs”) and/or commercialization activities.regulatory consultants to assist us in this process. Securing regulatory approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to the various regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the product candidate’s safety and efficacy. Securing regulatory approval also requires the submission of information about the drug manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the relevant regulatory authority. Our product candidates may not be effective, may be only moderately effective or may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that may preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use.

The process of obtaining regulatory approvals, both in the United States and abroad, is expensive, may take many years if additional clinical trials are required, if approval is obtained at all, and can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including

21

the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved. Changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or changes in regulatory review for each submitted IND, Premarket Approval, BLA or equivalent application types, may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. The FDA and comparable authorities in other countries have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data are insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical, clinical or other studies. Our product candidates could be delayed in receiving, or fail to receive, regulatory approval for many reasons, including the following:

Such measures might

Of the large number of drugs in development, only a small percentage successfully complete the FDA or foreign regulatory approval processes and are commercialized. The lengthy approval process as well as the unpredictability of future clinical trial results may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval to market our product candidates, which would significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects.

We expect the novel nature of our product candidates to create further challenges in obtaining regulatory approval. As a result, our ability to develop product candidates and obtain regulatory approval may be significantly impacted.

For example, the general approach for FDA approval of a new biologic or drug is for sponsors to seek licensure or approval based on dispositive data from well-controlled, Phase 3 clinical trials of the relevant product candidate in the relevant patient population. Phase 3 clinical trials typically involve hundreds of patients, have significant costs and take years to complete. We intend to utilize FDA’s accelerated approval program for our product candidates given the limited alternatives for treatments for certain rare diseases, cancer and autoimmune diseases, but the FDA may not agree with our plans.

The FDA may also require a panel of experts, referred to as an Advisory Committee, to deliberate on the adequacy of the safety and efficacy data to support approval. The opinion of the Advisory Committee, although not binding, may have a significant impact on our ability to obtain approval of any product candidates that we develop based on the completed clinical trials.

Moreover, approval of genetic or biomarker diagnostic tests may be necessary in order to advance some of our product candidates to clinical trials or potential commercialization. In the future, regulatory agencies may require the development and approval of such tests. Accordingly, the regulatory approval pathway for such product candidates may be uncertain, complex, expensive and lengthy, and approval may not be obtained.

In addition, even if we were to obtain approval, regulatory authorities may approve any of our product candidates for fewer or more limited indications than we request, may not approve the price we intend to charge for our products, may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials, or may approve a product candidate with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that product candidate. Any of the foregoing scenarios could reduce the size of the potential market for our product candidates and materially harm the commercial prospects for our product candidates.

22

If we experience delays in obtaining approval or if we fail to obtain approval of our product candidates, the commercial prospects for our product candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate revenues will be materially impaired.

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

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

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

Our product candidates may cause undesirable side effects that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval, limit the commercial profile of an approved label, or result in significant negative consequences following marketing approval, if any.

Undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates could cause us to interrupt, delay or halt preclinical studies or could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. As is the case with many treatments for cancer and autoimmune diseases, it is likely that there may be side effects associated with their use. Results of our trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of these or other side effects. In such an event, our trials could be suspended or terminated and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. The treatment-related side effects could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Further, clinical trials by their nature utilize a sample of the potential patient population. With a limited number of patients and limited duration of exposure, rare and severe side effects of our product candidates may only be uncovered with a significantly larger number of patients exposed to the product candidate. If our product candidates receive marketing approval and we or others identify undesirable side effects caused by such product candidates (or any other similar drugs) after such approval, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

We believe that any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product candidates and could substantially increase the costs of commercializing our product candidates, if approved, and significantly impact our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and generate revenues.

Our competitors may have superior products, manufacturing capability, selling and marketing expertise and/or financial and other resources.

Our product candidates and the product candidates in development by our collaboration partners may fail because of competition from major pharmaceutical companies and specialized biotechnology companies that market products, or that are engaged in the development of product candidates and for the treatment cancer. Many of our competitors, including large pharmaceutical companies, have substantially greater financial, technical and other resources than we do, such as larger research and development staff, experienced marketing and manufacturing organizations and well-established sales forces. Our competitors may:

Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large, established companies. Established pharmaceutical companies may also invest heavily to accelerate discovery and development of novel therapeutics or to in-license novel therapeutics that could make the product candidates that we develop obsolete. Mergers and acquisitions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated in our competitors. Competition may increase further as a result of advances in the commercial applicability of technologies and greater availability of capital for investment in these industries.

There is no guarantee that our product candidates will be able to compete with potential future products being developed by our competitors.

The CPM drug landscape is crowded with several competitors developing assets against a number of targets. Our development plans are spread out across various indications and lines of therapy, either alone or in combination with other assets. Our competitors range from small cap to large cap companies, with assets in pre-clinical or clinical stages of development. Therefore, the landscape is dynamic and constantly evolving. We and our partners have CPM antibody programs, currently in clinical stage development targeting various pathways (as mono- or multi-specifics) including PD-1, CTLA-4, GITR, OX40, TIM-3, LAG-3, CD73, TGFb and CD137. We are aware of many companies that have antibody-based products on the market or in clinical development that are directed to the same biological targets as these programs, including, without limitation, the following: (1) BMS markets ipilimumab, an anti-CTLA-4 antibody, and nivolumab, an anti-PD-1 antibody, and is developing additional antagonists to LAG-3, TIM-3 and CD73. BMS also has next generation anti-CTLA-4 antibodies in the clinic, which may be competitive to our next generation anti-CTLA-4 program, (2) Merck has an approved anti-PD-1 antibody, as well as anti-CTLA-4 and LAG-3 antagonists recruiting in clinical trials, (3) Regeneron has an approved anti-PD-1 antibody as well as antibodies targeting CTLA-4 and LAG-3 in clinical trials, (4) AstraZeneca has an approved anti PD-L1 antibody, as well as an anti-CTLA-4 targeting antibody in the clinic, (5) Pfizer has an approved anti-PD-L1 (with Merck KgaA) as well as agents targeting PD-1, TGFbR1 CD137 in clinical development, and (6) Roche/Genentech has an approved anti-PD-L1 antibody. Besides these PD-1 and PD-L1 antibodies that were approved in the U.S., we are also aware of competitors with approved PD-1 agents in ex-U.S. geographies such as China. These include Innovent Biologics, Shanghai Junshi Biosciences, Shanghai HengRui Pharmaceuticals and Beigene. We are also aware of other competitors with PD-1/PD-L1 agents in clinical development, including but not limited to AbbVie, Arcus Biosciences, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK,  Macrogenics/Incyte, CytomX, Novartis, Symphogen, Jounce Therapeutics, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Apollomics/Genor Biopharma, Fortress Biotech, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Suzhou Alphamab, Mabspace Biosciences, Akeso Biopharma, Sichuan Kelun Pharmaceutical, CSPC ZhongQi Pharmaceutical Technology, ImmuneOncia, Lee’s Pharmaceuticals and Sinocelltech. We are also

24

aware of competitors with pre-clinical antibodies against PD-1 or PD-L1. In addition, we are aware of competitors with clinical stage drug candidates against CTLA-4, GITR, OX40, LAG-3, TIM-3, CD73, TGFb, CD137 as well as our earlier stage programs such as TIGIT. As outlined above, some of these include, but are not limited to, BMS, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, Merck, Beigene, Regeneron, CStone Therapeutics, OncoImmune, Eli Lilly, Innovent Biologics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Arcus Biosciences, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Potenza, iTeos Therapeutics, GSK, AbbVie, Merck KgaA, Leap Therapeutics, Mereo Biopharma, OncoMed, Symphogen, Alligator Biosciences, Adagene, Lyvgen Biopharma, Compass Therapeutics, MedPacto, Sanofi and Forbius. Additionally, we are aware of competitors developing preclinical assets against these targets, including next generation agents. We are also aware of competitors with clinical or preclinical stage bispecifics targeting PD-1, CTLA-4, GITR, OX40, TIM-3, LAG-3, CD73, TGFb and CD137. There is no guarantee that our antibody product candidates will be able to successfully compete with our competitors’ antibody products and product candidates.

We are conducting both monotherapy and combination trials in second line cervical cancer. We are aware that Merck’s PD-1 antagonist, Keytruda, has been approved in advanced cervical cancer. We are also aware of industry sponsored clinical trials, including exploratory studies, that are underway in this setting. Clinical stage competitors include, but are not limited to, Regeneron (anti-PD-1), Ono Pharmaceuticals and BMS (anti-PD-1 alone or in combination with CTLA-4), Seattle Genetics and Genmab (antibody drug conjugate targeting Tissue Factor), Iovance Biotherapeutics (autologous TILs), Merck KgaA (PD-L1/TGFb), Genor Biopharma and Lee Pharmaceuticals.

We have autologous vaccine programs in clinical development including our Prophage vaccine in clinical development for GBM. We are aware of other therapeutic options in GBM that could compete with our vaccine, including but not limited to the following: Merck markets temozolomide for treatment of patients with ndGBM and refractory astrocytoma. Other companies are developing vaccines for the treatment of patients with ndGBM, including, but not limited to, Northwest Biotherapeutics (DC-Vax), Mimivax Inc. (SurVaxM) and Annias Immunotherapeutics (CMV Vaccine). Other companies may begin development programs as well. We are advancing our neoantigen vaccine, AutoSynVax, in solid tumors. There are companies advancing individualized or synthetic vaccine technologies and/or patient-specific medicine techniques that compete with our HSP based vaccines including, but not limited to: Gritstone Oncology, BioNTech, Moderna/Merck, Genocea Biosciences, ISA Pharmaceuticals, Nouscom, EpiVax Inc., and Vaccibody.

In addition, and prior to regulatory approval, if ever, our vaccines and our other product candidates may compete for access to patients with other products in clinical development, with products approved for use in the indications we are studying, or with off-label use of products in the indications we are studying. We anticipate that we will face increased competition in the future as new companies enter markets we seek to address and scientific developments surrounding immunotherapy and other traditional cancer therapies continue to accelerate.

We are aware of compounds that claim to be comparable to QS-21 Stimulon that are being used in clinical trials. Several other vaccine adjuvants are in development or in use and could compete with QS-21 Stimulon for inclusion in vaccines. These adjuvants may include but are not limited to: (1) oligonucleotides, under development by Pfizer, Idera, and Dynavax, (2) MF59, under development by Novartis, (3) IC31, under development by Intercell (now part of Valneva), and (4) MPL, under development by GSK. In the past, we have provided QS-21 Stimulon to other entities under materials transfer arrangements. In at least one instance, it is possible that this material was used without our permission to develop synthetic formulations and/or derivatives of QS-21. In addition, companies such as Adjuvance Technologies, Inc., CSL Limited, and Novavax, Inc., as well as academic institutions and manufacturers of saponin extracts, are developing saponin adjuvants, including derivatives and synthetic formulations. These sources may be competitive to our ability to execute future partnering and licensing arrangements involving QS-21 Stimulon. The existence of products developed by these and other competitors, or other products of which we are not aware, or which other companies may develop in the future, may adversely affect the marketability of products developed or sold using QS-21 Stimulon.

We are also aware of a third party that manufactures pre-clinical material purporting to be comparable to QS-21 Stimulon. The claims being made by this third party may create marketplace confusion and have an adverse effect on the goodwill generated by us and our partners with respect to QS-21 Stimulon. We are also aware of other manufacturers of QS-21. Any diminution of this goodwill may have an adverse effect on our ability to commercialize future products, if any, incorporating this technology, either alone or with a third party.

Even if we obtain regulatory approval to market our product candidates, the availability and price of our competitors’ products could limit the demand and the price we are able to charge for our product candidates. We may not be able to implement our business plan if the acceptance of our product candidates is inhibited by price competition or the reluctance of physicians to switch from existing methods of treatment to our product candidates, or if physicians switch to other new drug or biologic products or choose to reserve our product candidates for use in limited circumstances.

Even if our product candidates receive marketing approval, we, or others, may subsequently discover that such product is less effective than previously believed or causes undesirable side effects that were not previously identified and our ability to market such product will be compromised.

25

Clinical trials of our product candidates are conducted in carefully defined subsets of patients who have agreed to enter into such clinical trials. Consequently, it is possible that our clinical trials may indicate an apparent positive effect of a product candidate that is greater than the actual positive effect, if any, or alternatively fail to identify undesirable side effects. If one or more of our product candidates receives regulatory approval, and we, or others, later discover that they are less effective than previously believed, or cause undesirable side effects, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

•withdrawal or limitation by regulatory authorities of approvals of such product;

•seizure of the product by regulatory authorities;

•recall of the product;

•restrictions on the marketing of the product or the manufacturing process for any component thereof;

•requirement by regulatory authorities of additional warnings on the label, such as a “black box” warning or contraindication;

•requirement that we implement a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy or create a medication guide outlining the risks of such side effects for distribution to patients;

•commitment to expensive additional safety studies prior to approval or post-marketing studies required by regulatory authorities of such product;

•the product may become less competitive;

•initiation of regulatory investigations and government enforcement actions;

•initiation of legal action against us to hold us liable for harm caused to patients; and

•harm to our reputation and resulting harm to physician or patient acceptance of our products.

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

Even if our product candidates receive marketing approval, such products may fail to achieve the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third- party payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.

If balstilimab and zalifrelimab or any other future product candidates receive marketing approval, whether as single agents or in combination with other therapies, they may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community. For example, current approved immunotherapies, and other cancer treatments like chemotherapy and radiation therapy, are well established in the medical community, and doctors could continue to rely on these therapies. If balstilimab and zalifrelimab or any other future 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 balstilimab and zalifrelimab or any future products, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including:

Even if we are able to commercialize any product candidates, such products may not receive coverage or may become subject to unfavorable pricing regulations, third-party reimbursement practices or healthcare reform initiatives, all of which would harm our business.

26

The legislation and regulations that govern marketing approvals, pricing and reimbursement for new drug products vary widely from country to country. Some countries require approval of the sale price of a drug before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing or drug licensing approval is granted. In some foreign markets, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. In the United States, approval and reimbursement decisions are not linked directly, but there is increasing scrutiny from the Congress and regulatory authorities of the pricing of pharmaceutical products. As a result, we might obtain marketing approval for a product candidate in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay our commercial launch of the product candidate, possibly for lengthy time periods, and negatively impact the revenues we are able to generate from the sale of the product candidate in that country. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more product candidates, even if our product candidates obtain marketing approval.

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of our product candidates for which we seek regulatory approval. Our ability to commercialize any drugs successfully will depend, in part, on the extent to which reimbursement for these drugs and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. Obtaining and maintaining adequate reimbursement for our product candidates, if approved, may be difficult. Moreover, the process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price of a product or for establishing the reimbursement rate that such a payor will pay for the product. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage and reimbursement for our products, if they are approved, by third-party payors.

A primary trend in the healthcare industry in the United States and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. Third-party payors may also seek, with respect to an approved product, additional clinical evidence that goes beyond the data required to obtain marketing approval. They may require such evidence to demonstrate clinical benefits and value in specific patient populations or they may call for costly pharmaceutical studies to justify coverage and reimbursement or the level of reimbursement relative to other therapies before covering our products. Accordingly, we cannot be sure that reimbursement will be available for any drug that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, we cannot be sure as to the level of reimbursement and whether it will be adequate. Coverage and reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. If reimbursement is not available or is available only at 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 drugs, and coverage may be more limited than the indications for which the drug is approved by the FDA or comparable regulatory authorities outside of the United States. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that any drug 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 drugs, 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 drug and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost drugs and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Net prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement policies. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and profitable payment rates from both government-funded and private payors for any approved drugs that we develop could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize drugs and our overall financial condition.

The market opportunities for our product candidates may be limited to those patients who are ineligible for or have failed prior treatments and may be small, and our estimates of the prevalence of our target patient populations may be inaccurate.

Cancer and autoimmune therapies are sometimes characterized as first-line, second-line, third-line and even fourth-line, and the FDA often approves new therapies initially only for last-line use. Initial approvals for new cancer and autoimmune therapies are often restricted to later lines of therapy, and in the case of cancer specifically, for patients with advanced or metastatic disease. Indeed, the BLAs that we intend to file in the second half of 2020 for balstilimab and zalifrelimab target second-line cervical cancer. This will limit the number of cervical cancer patients who may be eligible to use balstilimab and zalifrelimab, if approved.

Our projections of both the number of people who have the diseases we are targeting, as well as the subset of people with these diseases in a position to receive our therapies, if approved, are based on our beliefs and estimates. These estimates have been derived from a variety of sources, including scientific literature, input from key opinion leaders, patient foundations, or secondary

27

market research databases, and may prove to be incorrect. Further, new studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these diseases. The number of patients may turn out to be lower than expected. Additionally, the potentially addressable patient population for our product candidates may be limited or may not be amenable to treatment with our product candidates. For instance, we expect our product candidates targeting cervical cancer to target the smaller patient populations that suffer from the respective diseases we seek to treat. Furthermore, regulators and payors may further narrow the therapy-accessible treatment population. Even if we obtain significant market share for our product candidates, because certain of the potential target populations are small, we may never achieve profitability without obtaining regulatory approval for additional indications.

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

We currently have a small number of employees that are tasked with building our marketing and sales organization, and we currently have no sales, marketing or distribution capabilities and have no experience as a company in marketing, selling or distributing products. Developing an in-house marketing organization and sales force will require significant capital expenditures, management resources and time and may ultimately prove to be unsuccessful. In the event we develop and deploy these capabilities, we will have to compete with other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to recruit, hire, train and retain marketing and sales personnel.

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

There can be no assurance that we will be able to develop in-house sales and distribution capabilities or establish or maintain relationships with third-party collaborators to commercialize any product in the United States or overseas.

Risks Related to Manufacturing and Supply

Our product candidates are uniquely manufactured. If we or any of our third-party manufacturers encounter difficulties in manufacturing our product candidates, our ability to provide supply of our product candidates for clinical trials or our products for patients, if approved, could be delayed or stopped, or we may be unable to maintain a commercially viable cost structure.

The manufacturing process used to produce certain of our product candidates is complex and novel and has not yet been validated for commercial production. As a result of these complexities, the cost to manufacture certain of our product candidates is potentially higher than traditional antibodies and the manufacturing process is less reliable and is more difficult to reproduce. Furthermore, our manufacturing process for certain of our product candidates has not been scaled up to commercial production. The actual cost to manufacture and process certain of our product candidates could be greater than we expect and could materially and adversely affect the commercial viability of such product candidates.

Our manufacturing process may be susceptible to logistical issues associated with the collection of materials sourced from various suppliers as well as shipment of the final product to clinical centers, manufacturing issues associated with interruptions in the manufacturing process, contamination, equipment or reagent failure, improper installation or operation of equipment, vendor or operator error, inconsistency in production batches, and variability in product characteristics. Even minor deviations from normal manufacturing processes could result in reduced production yields, lot failures, product defects, product recalls, product liability claims and other supply disruptions. If microbial, viral, or other contaminations are discovered in our product candidates or in our manufacturing facilities in which our product candidates are made, production at such manufacturing facilities may be interrupted for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination. Further, as we transition from late-stage clinical trials toward approval and commercialization, it is common that various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing methods, are altered along the way in an effort to optimize processes and results. Such changes carry the risk that they will not achieve these intended objectives, and any of these changes could cause our product candidates to perform differently and affect the results of planned clinical trials or other future clinical trials.

Although we continue to optimize our manufacturing process for our antibody product candidates, doing so is a difficult and uncertain task, and there are risks associated with scaling to the level required for commercialization, including, among others, cost overruns, potential problems with process scale-up, process reproducibility, stability issues, lot consistency, and timely availability of reagents and/or raw materials. We ultimately may not be successful in transferring our in-house clinical scale production system to

28

any commercial scale manufacturing facilities that we establish ourselves, or establish at a contract manufacturing organization (“CMO”). If we are unable to adequately validate or scale-up the manufacturing process for our product candidates with our contracted CMO, we will need to transfer to another manufacturer and complete the manufacturing validation process, which can be lengthy. If we are able to adequately validate and scale-up the manufacturing process for our product candidates with a contract manufacturer, we will still need to negotiate with such contract manufacturer an agreement for commercial supply and it is not certain we will be able to come to agreement on terms acceptable to us for all product candidates. As a result, we may ultimately be unable to reduce the cost of goods for our product candidates to levels that will allow for an attractive return on investment if and when those product candidates are commercialized.

The manufacturing process for any products that we may develop is subject to the FDA and foreign regulatory authority approval process, and we will need to contract with manufacturers who can meet all applicable FDA and foreign regulatory authority requirements on an ongoing basis. If we or our CMOs are unable to reliably produce products to specifications acceptable to the FDA or other regulatory authorities, we may not obtain or maintain the approvals we need to commercialize such products. Even if we obtain regulatory approval for any of our product candidates, there is no assurance that either we or our CMOs will be able to manufacture the approved product to specifications acceptable to the FDA or other regulatory authorities, to produce it in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements for the potential launch of the product, or to meet potential future demand. Any of these challenges could delay completion of clinical trials, require bridging clinical trials or the repetition of one or more clinical trials, increase clinical trial costs, delay approval of our product candidates, impair commercialization efforts, increase our cost of goods, and have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects. Our future success depends on our ability to manufacture our products on a timely basis with acceptable manufacturing costs, while at the same time maintaining good quality control and complying with applicable regulatory requirements, and an inability to do so could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations. In addition, we could incur higher manufacturing costs if manufacturing processes or standards change, and we could need to replace, modify, design, or build and install equipment, all of which would require additional capital expenditures. Specifically, because our product candidates may have a higher cost of goods than conventional therapies, the risk that coverage and reimbursement rates may be inadequate for us to achieve profitability may be greater.

We own and operate our own clinical scale manufacturing facility and infrastructure in addition to or in lieu of relying on CMOs for the manufacture of clinical supplies of our product candidates. This is costly and time-consuming.

In 2015, we secured our own internal antibody manufacturing capabilities with the purchase of a manufacturing pilot plant from XOMA Corporation in Berkeley, California, and this facility supplies our antibody drug substance requirements for clinical proof-of-concept studies. Any performance failure on the part of our existing facility could delay clinical development or marketing approval of our antibody programs.

To date, we have manufactured our Prophage vaccines in our Lexington, MA facility. Manufacturing of the Prophage vaccines is complex, and various factors could cause delays or an inability to supply the vaccine. Deviations in the processes controlling manufacture or deficiencies in size or quality of source material could result in production failures. Specific vulnerabilities in the process may exist in tumor types in which quality or quantity of tissue is limited. In addition, regulatory bodies may require us to make principalour manufacturing facility a single product facility. In such an instance, we may elect to manufacture another product candidate in our current facility and interest payments. would no longer have the ability to manufacture Prophage vaccines as well.

We have given our corporate QS-21 Stimulon licensee, GSK, manufacturing rights for QS-21 Stimulon for use in their product programs. We have retained the right to manufacture QS-21 for ourselves and third parties, although no other such programs are anticipated to bring us substantial revenues in the near future, if ever. Although we have the right to secure certain quantities of QS-21 from GSK and we have some internal supply in-house, we currently do not have an alternative long-term supply partner for this adjuvant. In January 2019, we announced that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation awarded us a grant to develop an alternative, plant cell culture-based manufacturing process with the goal of ensuring the continuous future supply of QS-21 Stimulon adjuvant. There is no guarantee that we will be successful in these development efforts.

We also may encounter problems hiring and retaining the experienced scientific, quality-control and manufacturing personnel needed to operate our manufacturing processes, which could result in delays in production or difficulties in maintaining compliance with applicable regulatory requirements.

Any problems in our manufacturing process or facilities, or that of our licensees and suppliers, could make us a less attractive collaborator for potential partners, including larger pharmaceutical companies and academic research institutions, which could limit our access to additional attractive development programs.

29

The FDA, the EMA and other foreign regulatory authorities may require us to submit samples of any lot of any approved product together with the protocols showing the results of applicable tests at any time. Under some circumstances, the FDA, the EMA or other foreign regulatory authorities may require that we not distribute a lot until the relevant agency authorizes its release. Slight deviations in the manufacturing process, including those affecting quality attributes and stability, may result in unacceptable changes in the product that could result in lot failures or product recalls. Lot failures or product recalls could cause us to delay product launches or clinical trials, which could be costly to us and otherwise harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Problems in our manufacturing process could restrict our ability to meet market demand for our products.

30

We are dependent on suppliers for some of our components and materials used to manufacture our product candidates.

We currently depend on suppliers for some of the components necessary for our product candidates. We cannot be sure that these suppliers will remain in business, that they will be able to meet our supply needs, or that they will not be purchased by one of our competitors or another company that is not interested in continuing to produce these materials for our intended purpose. There are, in general, relatively few alternative sources of supply for these components. These suppliers may be unable or unwilling to meet our future demands for our clinical trials or commercial sale. Establishing additional or replacement suppliers for these components could take a substantial amount of time and it may be difficult to establish replacement suppliers who meet regulatory requirements. Any disruption in supply from a supplier or manufacturing location could lead to supply delays or interruptions which would damage our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If we are able to find a replacement supplier, the replacement supplier would need to be qualified and may require additional regulatory authority approval, which could result in further delay. While we seek to maintain adequate inventory of the materials used to manufacture our products, any interruption or delay in the supply of materials, or our inability to obtain materials from alternate sources at acceptable prices in a timely manner, could impair our ability to meet the demand of our customers and cause them to cancel orders.

In addition, as part of the FDA’s approval of our product candidates, we will also require FDA approval of the individual components of our process, which include the manufacturing processes and facilities of our suppliers.

Our reliance on these suppliers subjects us to a number of risks that could harm our business, and financial condition, including, among other things:

If any of these risks materialize, our manufacturing costs could significantly increase and our ability to meet clinical and commercial demand for our products could be impacted.

We rely on third parties for the manufacture of clinical supplies of certain of our product candidates and expect to rely on third parties for commercial supplies of any approved product candidates. This reliance on third parties increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our drug candidates or drugs or such financing, refinancing,quantities at an acceptable cost, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.

We expect to rely on third-party manufacturers for the manufacture of commercial supplies of our drug candidates. At present, we do not have long-term supply agreements with all of the vendors needed to produce our product candidates for commercial sale and we may be unable to establish such agreements with third-party manufacturers or to do so on acceptable terms.

The agreements that we do have in place with our third-party manufacturers obligate us to make significant non-refundable deposits to reserve manufacturing slots prior to the receipt of marketing approval for our product candidates.  Additionally, if our product candidates are approved, we will be required to make minimum purchases and limit our ability to purchase product in excess of our forecasted needs. As a result, if product sales fall below our minimum purchase obligations, we will be obligated to purchase more product than we can successfully sell, and if product demand exceeds the amount that we can purchase from our manufacturers, we will have to forgo some product sales. Either of these events may materially harm our financial prospects. Finally, reliance on third-party manufacturers entails additional risks, including:

31

The agreements that we have in place with our third-party suppliers and manufacturers significantly limit the liability of such suppliers and manufacturers for failing to supply or manufacture, as applicable, our product candidates pursuant to the terms of our agreements, or as required by applicable regulation or law. As a result, if we suffer losses due to our suppliers or manufacturers failure to perform, we will have limited remedies available against such suppliers and manufacturers and are unlikely to be able to recover such losses from them.

Third-party manufacturers may not be able to comply with cGMP regulations or similar regulatory requirements outside of the United States. Facilities used by our third-party manufacturers must be inspected by the FDA after we submit an BLA and before potential approval of the drug candidate. Similar regulations apply to manufacturers of our drug candidates for use or sale in foreign countries. We will not control the manufacturing process and will be completely dependent on our third-party manufacturers for compliance with the applicable regulatory requirements for the manufacture of assets mightour drug candidates. If our manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA and any applicable foreign regulatory authority, they will not be able to secure the applicable approval for their manufacturing facilities. If these facilities are not approved for commercial manufacture, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which could result in delays in obtaining approval for the applicable drug candidate as alternative qualified manufacturing facilities may not be available on favorablea timely basis or at all. In addition, our manufacturers are subject to ongoing periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and corresponding state and foreign agencies for compliance with cGMPs and similar regulatory requirements. Failure by any of our manufacturers to comply with applicable cGMPs or other regulatory requirements could result in sanctions being imposed on us or the contract manufacturer, including fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspensions or withdrawals of approvals, operating restrictions, interruptions in supply and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of our drug candidates and have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Any drugs that we may develop may compete with other drug candidates and drugs for access to manufacturing facilities. There are a limited number of manufacturers that operate under cGMP regulations and that might be capable of manufacturing for us.

Our anticipated future dependence upon others for the commercial manufacture of our drug candidates or drugs may adversely affect our future profit margins and our ability to commercialize any drugs that receive marketing approval on a timely and competitive basis.

Risks Related to Our Reliance on Third Parties

We are dependent upon our collaboration with Gilead to further develop and commercialize certain of our antibody programs. If we or Gilead fail to perform as expected, the potential for us to generate future revenues under the collaboration could be significantly reduced, the development and/or commercialization of these antibodies may be terminated or substantially delayed, and our business could be adversely affected.

In December 2018, we entered into a series of agreements with Gilead to collaborate on the development and commercialization of up to five novel I-O therapies. Pursuant to the collaboration agreements, Gilead received (i) worldwide exclusive rights to AGEN1423 (now GS-1423), a bispecific antibody, (ii) the exclusive option to license exclusively AGEN1223, a bispecific antibody, and AGEN2373, a monospecific antibody, and (iii) the right of first negotiation for two additional, undisclosed programs. Gilead has the exclusive right to develop and commercialize GS-1423, and we are eligible to receive potential development and commercial milestones of up to $552.5 million in the aggregate, as well as tiered royalty payments on aggregate net sales ranging from the high single digit to mid-teen percent, subject to certain reductions under certain circumstances. Accordingly, the timely and successful completion by Gilead of clinical development and commercialization activities will significantly affect the timing and amount of any milestones or royalties we may receive for this program. Gilead’s activities will be influenced by, among other things, the efforts and allocation of resources by Gilead, which we cannot control. With respect to the option programs, we are responsible for developing

32

each program up to the option decision point, at which time Gilead may acquire exclusive rights to each program on option exercise. During the option period, we are eligible to receive milestones of up to $30.0 million in the aggregate. If Gilead exercises an option, it would be required to pay an upfront license exercise fee of $50.0 million for each option that is exercised. Following any option exercise, we would be eligible to receive additional development and commercial milestones of up to $520.0 million in the aggregate for each such option program, as well as tiered royalty payments on aggregate net sales ranging from the high single digit to mid-teen percent, subject to certain reductions under certain circumstances. For either, but not both, of the option programs, we will have the right to opt-in to share Gilead’s development and commercialization costs in the United State for such option program in exchange for a profit (loss) share on a 50:50 basis and revised milestone payments. There is no guarantee that we will receive any fees, milestones or royalties from Gilead. Similarly, there is no guarantee that we will be able to successfully advance the option programs to the option decision point, and, even if we do, there is no guarantee that Gilead will exercise its option for either program. If Gilead does not exercise its option for either of the option programs, there is no guarantee that we will be able to advance any such program ourselves or with another partner. If we wanted to partner either of the programs that are subject to a right of first negotiation with a third party other than Gilead, such discussions could be delayed and ultimately terminated as a result of Gilead’s right of first negotiation. Accordingly, we may not be able to partner either of these programs with a third party other than Gilead on attractive terms, if at all.

In addition, our collaboration with Gilead may be unsuccessful due to other factors, including, without limitation, the following:

We are dependent upon our collaboration with Incyte to further develop, manufacture and commercialize antibodies against certain targets. If we or Incyte fail to perform as expected, the potential for us to generate future revenues under the collaboration could be significantly reduced, the development and/or commercialization of these antibodies may be terminated or substantially delayed, and our business could be adversely affected.

In February 2017, we amended the terms of our collaboration agreement with Incyte to, among other things, convert the GITR and OX40 programs from profit-share programs, where we and Incyte shared all costs and profits on a 50:50 basis, to royalty-bearing programs, where Incyte funds 100% of the costs and we are eligible for potential milestones and royalties. In addition, the profit-share programs relating to TIGIT and one undisclosed target were removed from the collaboration, with TIGIT reverting to Agenus and the undisclosed target reverting to Incyte, each with a potential 15% royalty to the other party on any global net sales. The remaining three royalty-bearing programs in the collaboration targeting TIM-3, LAG-3 and one undisclosed target remain unchanged, and there are no more profit-share programs under the collaboration. For each program in the collaboration, we serve as the lead for pre-clinical development activities through the filing of an IND, and Incyte has exclusive rights and all decision-making authority for manufacturing, clinical development and commercialization. Accordingly, the timely and successful completion by Incyte of clinical development and commercialization activities will significantly affect the timing and amount of any royalties or milestones we may receive under the collaboration agreement. In addition, in March 2017 we transferred manufacturing responsibilities to Incyte for antibodies under that collaboration. Any delays or weaknesses in the ability of Incyte to successfully manufacture could have an adverse impact on those programs. Incyte’s activities will be influenced by, among other things, the efforts and allocation of resources by Incyte, which we cannot control. If Incyte does not perform in the manner we expect or fulfill its responsibilities in a timely manner, or at all, the clinical development, manufacturing, regulatory approval, and commercialization efforts related to antibodies under the collaboration could be delayed or terminated. There can be no assurance that any of the development, regulatory or sales milestones will be achieved, or that we will receive any future milestone or royalty payments under the collaboration agreement. In September 2018, we sold to XOMA a portion of the royalties and milestones we are entitled to receive from Incyte.

14

In addition, our collaboration with Incyte may be unsuccessful due to other factors, including, without limitation, the following:

33

If Incyte terminates our collaboration agreement, we may need to raise additional capital and may need to identify and come to agreement with another collaboration partner to advance certain of our antibody programs. Even if we are able to find another partner, this effort could cause delays in our timelines and/or additional expenses, which could adversely affect our business prospects and the future of our antibody product candidates under the collaboration.

Our antibody programs are in early stage development, and there is no guarantee that we or our partners will be successful in advancing antibody product candidates into and through clinical development.

Our antibody programs are currently in early stage development, and many of our antibody programs are pre-clinical. Even if our pre-clinical studies or our and/or our partners’ clinical trials produce positive results, they may not necessarily be predictive of the results of future clinical trials. Many companies in the pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in clinical trials after achieving positive results in pre-clinical development or earlier clinical trials, and we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks. These setbacks have been caused by, among other things, pre-clinical findings made while clinical trials were underway or safety or efficacy observations made in clinical trials, including adverse events. Moreover, pre-clinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in pre-clinical studies and clinical trials nonetheless failed to obtain regulatory approval. If we and our partners fail to produce positive results in clinical trials of antibodies, our business and financial prospects would be materially adversely affected.

Although we are targeting to file our first BLA as early as the second half of 2019 and becoming a commercial organization in 2020, there is no guarantee that we will be able to do so on that timeline or at all.  Our stated timelines are aggressive and subject to various factors outside of our control, including patient accrual rates for our clinical trials. If our trials are unable to accrue patients at the rate we expect, we are unlikely to hit our anticipated timelines and our business and financial prospects could be materially adversely affected.

Similarly, although we are striving to file numerous INDs to advance novel antibodies and cell therapy candidates into the clinic in the next 12-18 months, there is no guarantee that we will be able to do so on that timeline, if at all. Our stated timelines are aggressive and subject to various risks, including resource constraints. If we are unable to advance novel candidates into the clinic as planned due to resource constraints or otherwise, our business and partnering prospects could be materially adversely affected.

We have undergone significant growth across multiple locations over the past few years, and are focusing on further enhancing core areas and capabilities as we move toward commercialization.  In addition, we have consolidated certain sites while expanding others to focus on our core priorities and future needs.  We may encounter difficulties in managing these growth and/or consolidation efforts, either of which could disrupt our operations.

Since our acquisition of Agenus Switzerland Inc., formerly known as 4-Antibody AG (“4-AB”) in January 2014, we have more than tripled our headcount, in part through various acquisitions and the expansion of our research and development activities both nationally and internationally. While we have restructured our organization over the past two years, we expect to continue increasing our headcount in certain core areas as we continue to build our development, manufacturing and commercialization capabilities and integrate our acquired technology platforms. To manage these organizational changes, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems and continue to recruit, train and retain qualified personnel. If our management is unable to effectively manage our growth, our expenses may increase more than expected, our ability to generate revenue could be reduced, and we may not be able to implement our business strategy.

As part of our efforts to optimize efficiency across our organization, we closed our Jena office in 2016 and consolidated these operations in the United Kingdom and Switzerland. In 2017, we completed a reduction in force in our Lexington, MA facility, which included certain members of our management, in line with our prioritization efforts, and we closed our office in Basel, Switzerland and transferred our research and development assets and capabilities there to the United Kingdom. If these transition efforts prove to

15

be unsuccessful, or if we identify management or operational gaps in connection with our changes, it could cause delays in discovery timelines and increased costs for certain of our internal and partnered programs, which also could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our synthetic Heat Shock Protein (“HSP”) peptide-based platform is in early stage development, and there is no guarantee that a product candidate will progress from this platform.

In June 2014, we reported positive results from a Phase 2 trial with HerpV^TM, a vaccine candidate for genital herpes from our synthetic HSP peptide-based platform. While the HerpV Phase 2 trial met its formal endpoints, subjects were not followed long enough to determine whether the magnitude of the effect on viral load would be sufficient to significantly reduce the incidence, severity, or duration of herpetic lesions or reduce the risk of viral transmission. Although we have not advanced this program into a Phase 3 trial, we initiated our ASV synthetic cancer vaccine program based on our prior findings with this platform. We initiated our first clinical trial for our first AutoSynVax product candidate in 2017; however, there is no guarantee that results of this trial or any potential future clinical trials will be positive. Although we are targeting to initiate a combination trial with ASV and one or more of our antibodies in 2018, there is no guarantee that we will be able to do so on that timeline or at all. Furthermore, it is possible that research and discoveries by others will render any product candidate from this platform as obsolete or noncompetitive.

We may not be able to advance clinical development or commercialize our cancer vaccine candidates or realize any benefits from these programs.

The probability of future clinical development efforts leading to marketing approval and commercialization of Prophage vaccines is highly uncertain. Prophage vaccines have been in clinical development for over 16 years, including multiple Phase 1 and 2 trials in eight different tumor types as well as randomized Phase 3 trials in metastatic melanoma and adjuvant renal cell carcinoma. To date, none of our clinical trials with Prophage vaccines have resulted in a marketing approval, except in Russia where commercialization of the approved product was unsuccessful. All of our currently planned trials involving Prophage are intended to be sponsored by third parties, and there is no guarantee that they will occur at all. In addition, while we believe Prophage vaccines may provide clinical benefit to some patients as a monotherapy and in combination with other therapies, there is no guarantee that, if completed, subsequent Prophage trials would yield useful translational and/or efficacy data.

Our current clinical trial plans with Prophage vaccines entails one government sponsored IND in which we provide support and product supply. For third-party sponsored trials, we lack the ability to control trial design, timelines, tumor tissue procurement and data availability. For example, in January 2017, we announced a clinical trial collaboration with the National Cancer Institute (“NCI”), whereby the NCI is conducting a double-blind, randomized controlled Phase 2 trial to evaluate the effect of Prophage vaccine in conjunction with Merck’s pembrolizumab on the overall survival rate of patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma (“ndGBM”). In addition, the Phase 2 trial of Prophage vaccine in combination with bevacizumab in patients with surgically resectable recurrent glioma that was being conducted under the sponsorship of the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, a cooperative group of the NCI, has been closed. In addition, our other cancer vaccine programs (ASV and PSV) are in Phase 1 and pre-clinical development, respectively, and there is no guarantee that they will successfully advance in and through the clinic. ASV also utilizes QS-21 Stimulon, and any inability or delay in securing adequate supplies of the adjuvant could have an adverse impact on the program or otherwise delay timelines. Current and future studies may eventually be terminated due to, among other things, slow enrollment, lack of probability that they will yield useful translational and/or efficacy data, lengthy timelines, or the unlikelihood that results will support timely or successful regulatory filings.

Changes in our manufacturing strategies, manufacturing problems, or increased demand may cause delays, unanticipated costs, or loss of revenue streams within or across our programs.

Our antibody programs will require substantial manufacturing development and investment to progress. We are currently progressing a portfolio of antibody programs that are at different stages of development. If these efforts are delayed or do not produce the desired outcomes, this will cause delays in development timelines and increased costs, which may cause us to limit the size and scope of our efforts and studies. In December 2015, we secured our own antibody manufacturing capabilities with the purchase of a manufacturing pilot plant from XOMA Corporation (“XOMA”), and we expect this facility to supply us with antibody drug substance requirements through clinical proof-of-concept studies. We will also need to develop or secure later phase and/or commercial manufacturing capabilities for larger, registrational studies or any commercial supply requirements. For the programs for which we will produce our own drug substance, we will continue to rely on third parties for fill-finish services and other parts of the manufacturing process. These services include the storage and maintenance of our drug substance during all stages of the manufacturing process. While we maintain insurance to cover certain potential losses, there is no guarantee that our insurance coverage will be adequate. Furthermore, we currently rely on contract manufacturing organizations (“CMOs”) and contract research organizations (“CROs”) to support some of our existing antibody programs. Our dependence on external CMOs for the manufacture of certain antibodies results in intrinsic risks to our performance, timelines, and costs of our accelerated development plans, and which

16

could divert resources away from our antibody programs and/or lead to delays in the development of our product candidates. In the event that our antibody programs require progressively larger production capabilities, our options for qualified CMOs may become more limited.

The long-term success of the antibody pilot plant manufacturing facility and capabilities that we acquired from XOMA will depend, in part, on our ability to realize the anticipated synergies, business opportunities and growth prospects from combining our manufacturing facilities in Lexington, MA with the antibody pilot plant manufacturing facility in Berkeley, CA. We may never realize these anticipated synergies, business opportunities and growth prospects. Assumptions underlying estimates of expected cost savings as a result of the acquisition of the antibody pilot plant manufacturing facility may be inaccurate. If any of these factors limit our ability to successfully manufacture antibodies to support our current and future clinical trials, the expectations of future results of operations, including certain cost savings and synergies expected to result from the acquisition of XOMA’s antibody pilot plant manufacturing facility, might not be met.  

We currently manufacture our Prophage vaccines in our Lexington, MA facility. Manufacturing of the Prophage vaccines is complex, and various factors could cause delays or an inability to supply the vaccine. Deviations in the processes controlling manufacture or deficiencies in size or quality of source material could result in production failures. Specific vulnerabilities in the process may exist in tumor types in which quality or quantity of tissue is limited. In addition, regulatory bodies may require us to make our manufacturing facility a single product facility. In such an instance, we would no longer have the ability to manufacture Prophage vaccines in addition to other product candidates in our current facility.

We have given our corporate QS-21 Stimulon licensee, GSK, manufacturing rights for QS-21 Stimulon for use in their product programs. We have retained the right to manufacture QS-21 for ourselves and third parties, although no other such programs are anticipated to bring us substantial revenues in the near future, if ever. Although we have the right to secure certain quantities of QS-21 from GSK and we have some internal supply in-house, we currently do not have an alternative long term supply partner for this adjuvant.

Our ability to efficiently manufacture our product candidates is contingent, in part, upon our own, and our CMOs’, ability to ramp up production in a timely manner without the benefit of years of experience and familiarity with the processes, which we may not be able to adequately transfer. We currently rely upon and expect to continue to rely upon third parties, potentially including our collaborators or licensees, to produce materials required to support our product candidates, pre-clinical studies, clinical trials, and any future commercial efforts. A number of factors could cause production interruptions at either our manufacturing facility or the facilities of our CMOs or suppliers, including equipment malfunctions, labor or employment retention problems, natural disasters, power outages, terrorist activities, or disruptions in the operations of our suppliers. Alternatively, there is the possibility we may have excess manufacturing capacity if product candidates do not progress as planned.

As mentioned above, reliance on third-party manufacturers entails risks to which we would not be subject if we manufactured all of our product candidates ourselves, including reliance on the third party for regulatory compliance, the possibility of breach of the manufacturing agreement by the third party because of factors beyond our control, and the possibility of termination or non-renewal of the agreement by the third party, based on its own business priorities, at a time that is costly or inconvenient for us.

Biopharmaceutical manufacturing is also subject to extensive government regulation. Components of a finished therapeutic product approved for commercial sale or used in late-stage clinical trials must be manufactured in accordance with current good manufacturing practices. These regulations govern manufacturing processes and procedures (including record-keeping) and the implementation and operation of quality systems to control and assure the quality of investigational products and products approved for sale. Our facilities and quality systems and the facilities and quality systems of some or all of our third-party contractors must pass a pre-approval inspection for compliance with the applicable regulations as a condition of regulatory approval of a product candidate. In addition, facilities are subject to on-going inspections and routine audits, and minor changes in manufacturing processes may require additional regulatory approvals and audits, either of which could cause us to incur significant additional costs, set-backs or delays and eventual loss of revenue.

Risks associated with doing business internationally could negatively affect our business.

We currently have research and development operations in the United Kingdom, and we expect to pursue pathways to develop and commercialize our product candidates in both U.S. and non-U.S. jurisdictions. Various risks associated with foreign operations may impact our success. Possible risks of foreign operations include fluctuations in the value of foreign and domestic currencies requirements to comply with various jurisdictional requirements such as data privacy regulations, disruptions in the import, export, and transportation of patient tumors and our products or product candidates, the product and service needs of foreign customers, difficulties in building and managing foreign relationships, the performance of our licensees or collaborators, geopolitical instability, unexpected regulatory, economic, or political changes in foreign and domestic markets, including without limitation any resulting

17

from the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union or our current political regime, and limitations on the flexibility of our operations and costs imposed by local labor laws.  

Our competitors may have superior products, manufacturing capability, selling and marketing expertise and/or financial and other resources.

Our product candidates and the product candidates in development by our collaboration partners may fail because of competition from major pharmaceutical companies and specialized biotechnology companies that market products, or that are engaged in the development of product candidates and for the treatment cancer. Many of our competitors, including large pharmaceutical companies, have greater financial and human resources and more experience than we do. Our competitors may:

There is no guarantee that our product candidates will be able to compete with potential future products being developed by our competitors.

The CPM landscape is crowded with several competitors developing assets against a number of targets. Development plans are spread out across various indications and lines of therapy, either alone or in combination with other assets. Competitors range from small cap to large cap companies, with assets in pre-clinical or clinical stages of development. Therefore, the landscape is dynamic and constantly evolving. We and our partners have CPM antibody programs currently in clinical stage development targeting PD-1, CTLA-4, GITR and OX40. We are aware of many companies that have antibody-based products on the market or in clinical development that are directed to the same biological targets as these programs, including, without limitation, the following: (1)  BMS markets ipilimumab, an anti-CTLA-4 antibody, and nivolumab, an anti-PD-1 antibody, and is developing agonists to GITR and OX-40, (2) Merck has an approved anti-PD-1 antibody in the United States, as well as an anti-CTLA-4 antagonist and an anti-GITR agonist in clinical development, (3) Ono Pharmaceuticals has an approved anti-PD-1 antibody in Japan, (4) AstraZeneca has an approved anti PD-L1 antibody, as well as anti-CTLA-4, PD-1, GITR and OX40 targeting antibodies in development, (5) Pfizer has an approved anti-PD-L1 (with Merck KgaA) as well as anti-PD-1, and anti-OX40 antibodies in clinical development, (6) Novartis has anti-PD-1, anti-PD-L1 and anti-GITR antibodies in clinical trials, and (7) Roche/Genentech has an approved anti-PD-L1 antibody. We are also aware of other competitors with PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies in clinical development, including AbbVie, Arcus Biosciences, Boehringer Ingelheim, Tesaro, Beigene, Regeneron, Eli Lilly, Jiangsu HengRui Medicine, Shanghai Junshi, Macrogenics, CytomX, Janssen, CBT Pharmaceuticals, Checkpoint Therapeutics, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Livzon MabPharm Inc and Suzhou Alphamab. We are also aware of competitors with pre-clinical antibodies against these targets. In addition, we are aware of competitors with clinical stage antibodies against targets in our earlier stage programs such as TIM-3, LAG-3, CD137, TIGIT and other undisclosed targets. These include, but are not limited to, BMS, Pfizer, Novartis, Merck, Roche, Tesaro, Eli Lilly, OncoMed, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astellas and Regeneron. Additionally, we are aware of competitors with assets against these targets that are in pre-clinical development. There is no guarantee that our antibody product candidates will be able to compete with our competitors’ antibody products and product candidates.

We are planning to advance combinations of our anti-CTLA-4 antibody, AGEN1884, with Keytruda in 1L NSCLC, where Keytruda is currently approved. Specifically, we will be evaluating efficacy within a subset of patients who express ≥50% PD-L1 protein biomarker levels. We are aware of competitors who have approved immunotherapy products in this indication, including having a label specifically directed at this patient subset, such as Merck (anti-PD-1 monotherapy). We are also aware of industry sponsored clinical trials, including exploratory studies, that are directed at this specific patient population. These include, but are not limited to, Incyte/Merck (anti-IDO + anti-PD-1), Merck (anti-PD-1 + anti-CTLA-4), Regeneron (anti-PD-1), Roche (anti-PD-L1), Merck KgaA / Pfizer (anti-PD-L1), and Tesaro (anti-PARP + anti-PD-1). We are also aware of competitors who have approved immunotherapies or have published positive Phase 3 data for immunotherapies in 1L NSCLC. These include, and are not limited to, Merck, BMS, and Roche. Additional competitors have ongoing clinical trials for immunotherapies in the 1L NSCLC setting, across PD-L1 expression levels.

We are also conducting activities in second line cervical cancer. We are aware of industry sponsored clinical trials, including exploratory studies, that are underway in cervical cancer. Our competitors include, but are not limited to, Regeneron (anti-PD-1), Merck (anti-PD-1), Ono Pharmaceuticals and BMS (anti-PD-1 alone or in combination with anti-CTLA-4 or anti-LAG-3 or anti-IDO),

18

Advaxis (HPV targeting vaccine alone or in combination with AstraZeneca’s anti-PD-L1 antibody or BMS’ anti-PD-1 antibody) and Lion Biotechnologies (autologous TILs). We are also aware that Advaxis has submitted a conditional Marketing Authorization Application (MAA) for its HPV targeting vaccine in the European Union. Additionally, we are aware of other early stage clinical trials testing alternate CPM targets in cervical cancer patients. These include, but are not limited to, OX40 +/- CD137 agonists (Pfizer) and anti-PD-1 + anti-ICOS (GSK/Merck).

We have autologous vaccine programs in development including our Prophage vaccine in clinical development for GBM and our neo-antigen based AutoSynVax vaccine in clinical development. We are aware of many companies pursuing personalized cancer vaccines in pre-clinical or clinical development, including, without limitation, the following: Aduro Biotech, Neon Therapeutics, Gritstone Oncology, Advaxis/Amgen, BioNTech, Moderna/Merck, Genocea Biosciences, Argos Therapeutics, EpiVax Inc. Nouscom, Immatics, EpiVax Inc., Achilles Therapeutics and BrightPath Biotherapeutics.

Several companies have products that utilize similar technologies and/or patient-specific medicine techniques that compete with our HSP based vaccines. Schering Corporation, a subsidiary of Merck, markets temozolomide for treatment of patients with ndGBM and refractory astrocytoma. Other companies are developing vaccines for the treatment of patients with ndGBM, including, but not limited to, Northwest Biotherapeutics (DC-Vax), Mimivax Inc. (SurVaxM) and Annias Immunotherapeutics (CMV Vaccine). Other companies may begin development programs as well.

To the extent we develop our vaccines in other indications or in combination with other product candidates, such as available standard of care agents (Avastin®), or with CPMs, they could face additional competition in those indications or in those combinations. In addition, and prior to regulatory approval, if ever, our vaccines and our other product candidates may compete for access to patients with other products in clinical development, with products approved for use in the indications we are studying, or with off-label use of products in the indications we are studying. We anticipate that we will face increased competition in the future as new companies enter markets we seek to address and scientific developments surrounding immunotherapy and other traditional cancer and infectious disease therapies continue to accelerate.

We are aware of compounds that claim to be comparable to QS-21 Stimulon that are being used in clinical trials. Several other vaccine adjuvants are in development and could compete with QS-21 Stimulon for inclusion in vaccines in development. These adjuvants include, but are not limited to, (1) oligonucleotides, under development by Pfizer, Idera, and Dynavax, (2) MF59, under development by Novartis, (3) IC31, under development by Intercell (now part of Valneva), and (4) MPL, under development by GSK. In the past, we have provided QS-21 Stimulon to other entities under materials transfer arrangements. In at least one instance, it is possible that this material was used unlawfully to develop synthetic formulations and/or derivatives of QS-21. In addition, companies such as Adjuvance Technologies, Inc., CSL Limited, and Novavax, Inc., as well as academic institutions and manufacturers of saponin extracts, are developing saponin adjuvants, including derivatives and synthetic formulations. These sources may be competitive to our ability to execute future partnering and licensing arrangements involving QS-21 Stimulon. The existence of products developed by these and other competitors, or other products of which we are not aware or which other companies may develop in the future, may adversely affect the marketability of products developed or sold using QS-21 Stimulon.

We are also aware of a third party that manufactures pre-clinical material purporting to be comparable to QS-21 Stimulon. The claims being made by this third party may create marketplace confusion and have an adverse effect on the goodwill generated by us and our partners with respect to QS-21 Stimulon. Any diminution of this goodwill may have an adverse effect on our ability to commercialize future products, if any, incorporating this technology, either alone or with a third party.

Failure to realize the anticipated benefits of our strategic acquisitions and licensing transactions could adversely affect our business, operations and financial condition.

An important part of our business strategy has been to identify and advance a pipeline of product candidates by acquiring and in-licensing product candidates, technologies and businesses that we believe are a strategic fit with our existing business. Since we acquired 4-AB), in February 2014, we have completed numerous additional strategic acquisitions and licensing transactions. The ultimate success of these strategic transactions entails numerous operational and financial risks, including:

19

We have limited resources to integrate acquired and in-licensed product candidates, technologies and businesses into our current infrastructure, and we may fail to realize the anticipated benefits of our strategic transactions. Any such failure could have an adverse effect on our business, operations and financial condition.

Failure to enter into and/or maintain additional significant licensing, distribution and/or collaboration agreements in a timely manner and on favorable terms to us may hinder or cause us to cease our efforts to develop and commercialize our product candidates, increase our development timelines, and/or increase our need to rely on partnering or financing mechanisms, such as sales of debt or equity securities, to fund our operations and continue our current and anticipated programs.

As previously noted, our ability to advance our antibody programs depends in part on collaboration agreements such as our collaboration with Incyte. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Business—We are dependent upon our collaboration with Incyte to further develop, manufacture and commercialize antibodies against certain targets. If Even if we or Incyte fail to perform as expected, the potential for us to generate future revenues under the collaboration could be significantly reduced, the development and/or commercialization of these antibodies may be terminated or substantially delayed, and our business could be adversely affected.” In addition, from time to time we engage in efforts to enter into licensing, distribution and/or collaboration agreements with one or more pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies to assist us with development and/or commercialization of our other product candidates. If we are successful in entering intoand maintain such agreements, we may not be able to negotiate agreements with economic terms similar to those negotiated by other companies. We may not, for example, obtain significant upfront payments, substantial royalty rates or milestones. If we fail to enter into any such agreements, our efforts to develop and/or commercialize our product candidates may be undermined. In addition, if we do not raise funds through any such agreements, we will need to rely on other financing mechanisms, such as sales of debt or equity securities, to fund our operations. Such financing mechanisms, if available, may not be sufficient or timely enough to advance our programs forward in a meaningful way in the short-term.

Because we rely on collaborators and licensees for the development and commercialization of certain of our product candidate programs, these programsthey may not prove successful, and/or we may not receive significant payments from such parties.agreements.

Part of our strategy is to develop and commercialize many of our product candidates by continuing or entering into arrangements with academic, government, or corporate collaborators and licensees. Our success depends on our ability to negotiate such agreements on favorable terms and on the success of the other parties in performing research, pre-clinical and clinical testing, completing regulatory applications, and commercializing product candidates. Our research, development, and commercialization efforts with respect to antibody candidates from our technology platforms are, in part, contingent upon the participation of institutional and corporate collaborators. For example, in February 2015, we began a broad collaboration with Incyte to pursue the discovery and development of antibodies. See “Risk Factors-Risks Relatedantibodies, and in December 2018 we entered into a partnership with Gilead relating to five of our Business—We are dependent upon our collaboration with Incyte to further develop, manufacture and commercialize antibodies against certain targets. If we or Incyte fail to perform as expected, the potential for us to generate future revenues under the collaboration could be significantly reduced, the development and/or commercialization of these antibodies may be terminated or substantially delayed, and our business could be adversely affected.”antibody programs. Furthermore, we have a collaboration arrangement with Recepta for CTLA-4balstilimab and PD-1,zalifrelimab, giving Recepta rights to certain South American countries and requiring us to agree upon development plans for these product candidates. Disagreements or the failure of either party to perform satisfactorily could have an adverse impact on these programs.

The Brain Tumor Trials Collaborative, through the NCI, is sponsoring a Phase 2 clinical trial of our Prophage vaccine candidate in combination with Merck’s pembrolizumab in patients with glioma. When our licensees or third-party collaborators sponsor clinical trials using our product candidates, we cannot control the timing of enrollment, data readout, or quality of such trials or related activities.  

Development activities forOur ability to advance our collaborationantibody programs may faildepends in part on such collaborations. In addition, from time to produce marketable products due to unsuccessful results or abandonment of these programs, failuretime we engage in efforts to enter into futurelicensing, distribution and/or collaboration agreements with one or more pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies to assist us with development and/or commercialization of our other product candidates. Any licensing, distribution and/or collaborations agreements, we enter into, including those with Gilead and Incyte, may pose a number of risks, including the following:

34

If our collaboratorscurrent or licensees. Such disputes couldfuture collaborations do not result in the incurrencesuccessful discovery, development and commercialization of products or if one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may not receive any future research funding or milestone or royalty payments under the collaboration. If we do not receive the funding we expect under these agreements, our development of our technology and product candidates could be delayed and we may need additional resources to develop product candidates and our technology. All of the risks relating to product development, regulatory approval and commercialization described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K also apply to the activities of our therapeutic collaborators.

Additionally, if one of our collaborators, such as Gilead, Incyte or Recepta, terminates its agreement with us, we may find it more difficult to attract new collaborators and our perception in the business and financial communities could be adversely affected.

Collaborations are complex and time-consuming to negotiate and document. In addition, there have been a significant expense,number of recent business combinations among large pharmaceutical companies that have resulted in a reduced number of potential future collaborators. We face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators. Our ability to reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors.

If we are unable to reach agreements with suitable collaborators on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all, we may have to curtail the terminationdevelopment of collaborations. Wea product candidate, reduce or delay its development program or one or more of our other development programs, delay its potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional expertise and additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. If we fail to enter into collaborations or do not have sufficient funds or expertise to undertake the necessary development and commercialization activities, we may not be able to further develop our product candidates, bring them to market and generate revenue from sales of drugs or continue to develop our technology, and our business may be unablematerially and adversely affected.

We rely on third parties to fulfill allconduct our clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines or comply with regulatory requirements, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval of or commercialize any potential product candidates.

We depend upon third parties, including independent investigators, to conduct our obligationsclinical trials under agreements with universities, medical institutions, CROs, strategic partners and others. Such reliance obligates us to our collaborators,negotiate budgets and contracts with CROs and trial sites, which may result in delays to our development timelines and increased costs.

We rely heavily on third parties over the terminationcourse of collaborations.our clinical trials, and, as a result, have limited control over the clinical investigators and limited visibility into their day-to-day activities, including with respect to their compliance with the approved clinical protocol. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal and regulatory requirements and scientific standards, and our reliance on third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and these third parties are required to comply with GCP requirements, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for product candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCP requirements through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, clinical investigators and trial sites. If we or any of these third parties fail to comply with applicable GCP requirements, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to suspend or terminate these trials or perform additional nonclinical studies or clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot be certain that, upon inspection, such regulatory authorities will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with the GCP requirements. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with biologic product produced under cGMP requirements and may require a large number of patients.

35

Our failure or any failure by these third parties to comply with these regulations or to recruit a sufficient number of patients may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process. Moreover, our business may be implicated if any of these third parties violates federal or state fraud and abuse or false claims laws and regulations or healthcare privacy and security laws.

The persons engaged by third parties conducting our clinical trials are not our employees and, except for remedies that may be available to us under our agreements with such third parties, we cannot control whether or not such persons devote sufficient time and resources to our ongoing pre-clinical and clinical programs. These third parties may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials or other product development activities, which could affect their performance on our behalf. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols or regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to complete development of, obtain regulatory approval of or successfully commercialize our product candidates. As a result, our financial results and the commercial prospects for our product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed.

If any of our relationships with these factors, our strategic collaborations may not yield revenue. Furthermore,third-party CROs or others terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs or other third parties or to do so on commercially reasonable terms. Switching or adding additional CROs involves additional cost and requires management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new collaborationsCRO begins work. As a result, delays may occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines. Though we carefully manage our relationships with our CROs, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter similar challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a material adverse impact on favorable termsour business, financial condition and prospects.

Risks Related to Government Regulations

The regulatory approval process for our product candidates in the United States, European Union and other jurisdictions is currently uncertain and will be lengthy, time-consuming and inherently unpredictable and we may experience significant delays in the clinical development and regulatory approval, if any, of our product candidates.

The research, testing, manufacturing, labeling, approval, selling, import, export, marketing and distribution of drug products, including biologics, are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA in the United States and regulatory authorities in states and other countries. We are not permitted to market any biological product in the United States until we receive a biologics license from the FDA. We have not previously submitted a BLA to the FDA, or similar marketing application to comparable foreign authorities, except for our application related to Prophage. A BLA must include extensive nonclinical and clinical data and supporting information to establish that the product candidate is safe, pure and potent for each desired indication. The BLA must also include significant information regarding the chemistry, manufacturing and controls for the product, and the manufacturing facilities must complete a successful pre-license inspection. We expect the novel nature of our product candidates to create further challenges in obtaining regulatory approval. Accordingly, the regulatory approval pathway for our product candidates may be uncertain, complex, expensive and lengthy, and we may never obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates.

The FDA may also require a panel of experts, referred to as an Advisory Committee, to deliberate on the adequacy of the safety and efficacy data to support approval. The opinion of the Advisory Committee, although not binding, may have a significant impact on our ability to obtain approval of any product candidates that we develop based on the completed clinical trials.

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

Although the regulatory framework for approving immunotherapy products is evolving, the general approach for FDA approval of a new biologic or drug has historically been to provide dispositive data from two well-controlled, Phase 3 clinical trials of the relevant biologic or drug in the relevant patient population. Phase 3 clinical trials typically involve hundreds of patients, have significant costs and take years to complete. We intend to utilize an accelerated approval approach for our product candidates given the limited alternatives for cancer treatments, but the FDA may not agree with our plans.

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

36

The FDA, the EMA and other regulatory authorities may implement additional regulations or restrictions on the development and commercialization of our product candidates, which may be difficult to predict.

The FDA, the EMA and regulatory authorities in other countries have each expressed interest in further regulating biotechnology products, such as antibodies, vaccines, adjuvants and adoptive cell therapies. Agencies at both the federal and state level in the United States, as well as the U.S. Congressional committees and other governments or governing agencies, have also expressed interest in further regulating the biotechnology industry. Such action may delay or prevent commercialization of some or all of our product candidates. Adverse developments in clinical trials of antibodies, vaccines, adjuvants or adoptive cell therapies products conducted by others may cause the FDA or other oversight bodies to change the requirements for approval of any of our product candidates. Similarly, the EMA governs the development of antibodies, vaccines, adjuvants and adoptive cell therapies in the European Union and may issue new guidelines concerning the development and marketing authorization for such products and require that we comply with these new guidelines. These regulatory review agencies and committees and the new requirements or guidelines they promulgate may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional studies or trials, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of our product candidates or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions. As we advance our product candidates, we will be required to consult with these regulatory agencies and comply with applicable requirements and guidelines. If we fail to do so, we may be required to delay or discontinue development of such product candidates. These additional processes may result in a review and approval process that is longer than we otherwise would have expected. Delays as a result of an increased or lengthier regulatory approval process or further restrictions on the development of our product candidates can be costly and could negatively impact our ability to complete clinical trials and commercialize our current and future product candidates in a timely manner, if at all.

Breakthrough Therapy Designation, Fast Track Designation or Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy Designation by the FDA, even if granted for any of our product candidates, may not lead to a faster development, regulatory review or approval process, and it does not increase the likelihood that any of our product candidates will receive marketing approval in the United States.

We may seek a Breakthrough Therapy Designation for some of our product candidates. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a therapy that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other therapies, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the therapy may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For therapies that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens. Therapies designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA may also be eligible for priority review and accelerated approval. Designation as a breakthrough therapy is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe one of our product candidates meets the criteria for designation as a breakthrough therapy, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. In any event, the receipt of a Breakthrough Therapy Designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to therapies considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates qualify as breakthrough therapies, the FDA may later decide that such product candidates no longer meet the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

In March 2020, we received Fast Track Designation for investigation of balstilimab in combination with zalifrelimab for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory metastatic cervical cancer, and we intend to apply for such designation for our other product candidates in the future. If a therapy is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and the therapy demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for this condition, the therapy sponsor may apply for Fast Track Designation. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant this designation, so even if we believe a particular product

37

candidate is eligible for this designation; we cannot assure our stockholers that the FDA would decide to grant it. We may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures for the product candidate for which we have received, or may receive in the future, Fast Track Designation. The FDA may withdraw Fast Track Designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. Fast Track Designation alone does not guarantee qualification for the FDA’s priority review procedures.

We may seek Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy (“RMAT”) designation for some of our product candidates including our allogeneic cell therapies. In 2017, the FDA established the RMAT designation as part of its implementation of the 21st Century Cures Act to expedite review of any drug that meets the following criteria: it qualifies as a RMAT, which is defined as a cell therapy, therapeutic tissue engineering product, human cell and tissue product, or any combination product using such therapies or products, with limited exceptions; it is intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition; and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug has the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. Like Breakthrough Therapy Designation, RMAT designation provides potential benefits that include more frequent meetings with FDA to discuss the development plan for the product candidate, and eligibility for rolling review and priority review. Products granted RMAT designation may also be eligible for accelerated approval on the basis of a surrogate or intermediate endpoint reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit, or reliance upon data obtained from a meaningful number of sites, including through expansion to additional sites. RMAT-designated products that receive accelerated approval may, as appropriate, fulfill their post-approval requirements through the submission of clinical evidence, clinical trials, patient registries, or other sources of real world evidence, such as electronic health records; through the collection of larger confirmatory data sets; or via post-approval monitoring of all patients treated with such therapy prior to approval of the therapy. There is no assurance that we will be able to obtain RMAT designation for any of our product candidates. RMAT designation does not change the FDA’s standards for product approval, and there is no assurance that such designation will result in expedited review or approval or that the approved indication will not be narrower than the indication covered by the designation. Additionally, RMAT designation can be revoked if the criteria for eligibility cease to be met as clinical data emerges.

We may seek priority review designation for one or more of our other product candidates, but we might not receive such designation, and even if we do, such designation may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process.

If the FDA determines that a product candidate offers a treatment for a serious condition and, if approved, the product would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness, the FDA may designate the product candidate for priority review. A priority review designation means that the goal for the FDA to review an application is six months, rather than the standard review period of ten months. We may request priority review for our product candidates. The FDA has broad discretion with respect to whether or not to grant priority review status to a product candidate, so even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for such designation or status, the FDA may decide not to grant it. Moreover, a priority review designation does not necessarily result in expedited development or regulatory review or approval process or necessarily confer any advantage with respect to approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. Receiving priority review from the FDA does not guarantee approval within the six-month review cycle or at all. Failure

We may not be able to generateobtain or maintain orphan drug designations from the FDA for our current and future product candidates, as applicable.

Our strategy includes filing for orphan drug designation where available for our product candidates, but thus far, our applications for orphan drug designation with respect to balstilimab and zalifrelimab have been rejected.

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan drug designation to a drug or biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is defined as one occurring in a patient population of fewer than 200,000 in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the United States where there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug or biologic will be recovered from sales in the United States. In the United States, orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives, such as opportunities for grant funding toward clinical trial costs, tax advantages and user-fee waivers. In addition, if a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including a full new drug application, or NDA, or BLA, to market the same drug or biologic for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity or where the original manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient product quantity.

In addition, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be limited if we seek approval for an indication broader than the orphan-designated indication or may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if we are unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the orphan- designated disease or condition. Further, even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because different drugs with different active moieties may receive and be approved for the same condition, and only

38

the first applicant to receive approval will receive the benefits of marketing exclusivity. Even after an orphan-designated product is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve a later drug with the same active moiety 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. Orphan drug designation neither shortens the development time or regulatory review time of a drug, nor gives the drug any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process. In addition, while we may again seek orphan drug designation for our product candidates, we may never receive such designations.

Our relationships with healthcare providers and physicians and third-party payors will be subject to applicable anti- kickback, fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm and diminished profits and future earnings.

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors in the United States and elsewhere play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of pharmaceutical products. Arrangements with third-party payors and customers can expose pharmaceutical manufactures to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, including, without limitation, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the federal False Claims Act (the “FCA”), which may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which such companies sell, market and distribute pharmaceutical products. In particular, the promotion, sales and marketing of healthcare items and services, as well as certain business arrangements in the healthcare industry, are subject to extensive laws designed to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self- dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, structuring and commission(s), certain customer incentive programs and other business arrangements generally. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of patient recruitment for clinical trials. The applicable federal, state and foreign healthcare laws and regulations laws that may affect our ability to operate include, but are not limited to:

39

The distribution of pharmaceutical products is subject to additional requirements and regulations, including extensive record-keeping, licensing, storage and security requirements intended to prevent the unauthorized sale of pharmaceutical products.

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

On January 31, 2019, the HHS and HHS Office of Inspector General proposed an amendment to one of the existing Anti- Kickback safe harbors (42 C.F.R. 1001.952(h)) which would prohibit certain pharmaceutical manufacturers from offering rebates to pharmacy benefit managers (“PBMs”), in the Medicare Part D and Medicaid managed care programs. The proposed amendment would remove protection for “discounts” from Anti-Kickback enforcement action and would include criminal and civil penalties for knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting, or receiving remuneration to induce or reward the referral of business reimbursable under federal health care programs. At the same time, HHS also proposed to create a new safe harbor to protect point-of-sale discounts that drug manufacturers provide directly to patients, and adds another safe harbor to protect certain administrative fees paid by manufacturers to PBMs. If this proposal is adopted, in whole or in part, it could increase our needaffect the pricing and reimbursement for any products for which we receive approval in the future.

The failure to fundcomply with any of these laws or regulatory requirements subjects entities to possible legal or regulatory action. Depending on the circumstances, failure to meet applicable regulatory requirements can result in civil, criminal and

40

administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, possible exclusion from participation in federal and state funded healthcare programs, contractual damages and the curtailment or restricting of our operations, throughas well as additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws. Any action for violation of these laws, even if successfully defended, could cause a pharmaceutical manufacturer to incur significant legal expenses and divert management’s attention from the operation of the business. Prohibitions or restrictions on sales or withdrawal of debtfuture marketed products could materially affect business in an adverse way.

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

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

If any of our product candidates are approved, they will be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements for manufacturing, labeling, packaging, storage, advertising, promotion, sampling, record-keeping, export, import, conduct of post-marketing studies and submission of safety, efficacy and other post-market information, including both federal and state requirements in the United States and requirements of comparable foreign regulatory authorities. In addition, we will be subject to continued compliance with cGMP and GCP requirements for any clinical trials that we conduct post- approval.

Manufacturers and manufacturers’ facilities are required to comply with extensive FDA, and comparable foreign regulatory authority requirements, including ensuring that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to cGMP regulations. As such, we and our contract manufacturers will be subject to continual review and inspections to assess compliance with cGMP and adherence to commitments made in any BLA, other marketing application, and previous responses to inspection observations. Accordingly, we and others with whom we work must continue to expend time, money, and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production and quality control.

Any regulatory approvals that we receive for our product candidates may be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate. The FDA may also require a risk evaluation and mitigation strategies, or REMS, program as a condition of approval of our product candidates, which could entail requirements for long-term patient follow-up, a medication guide, physician communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. In addition, if the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority approves our product candidates, we will have to comply with requirements including submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports and registration.

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

41

The FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising, and promotion of products that are placed on the market. Products may be promoted only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability. The policies of the FDA and of other regulatory authorities may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained which would negativelyadversely affect our business, prospects.prospects and ability to achieve or sustain profitability.

20

Our internal computer systems,We also cannot predict the likelihood, nature or thoseextent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative or executive action, either in the United States or abroad. For example, certain policies of the current administration may impact our business and industry. Namely, the current administration has taken several executive actions, including the issuance of a number of executive orders, that could impose significant burdens on, or otherwise materially delay, the FDA’s ability to engage in routine regulatory and oversight activities, such as implementing statutes through rulemaking, issuance of guidance and review and approval of marketing applications. It is difficult to predict how these executive actions, including any executive orders, will be implemented, and the extent to which they will impact the FDA’s ability to exercise its regulatory authority. If these executive actions impose constraints on FDA’s ability to engage in oversight and implementation activities in the normal course, our business may be negatively impacted.

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

The success of our product candidates, if approved, depends on the availability of adequate coverage and reimbursement from third-party CROs, CMOs, licensees, collaboratorspayors. In addition, because our product candidates represent new approaches to the treatment of the diseases they target, we cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement will be available for, or accurately estimate the potential revenue from, our product candidates or assure that coverage and reimbursement will be available for any product that we may develop.

Patients who are provided medical treatment for their conditions generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their treatment. Adequate coverage and reimbursement from governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and commercial payors are critical to new product acceptance.

Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which drugs and treatments they will cover and the amount of reimbursement. Coverage and reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon a number of factors, including the third-party payor’s determination that use of a product is:

In the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors. As a result, obtaining coverage and reimbursement approval of a product from a government or other contractorsthird-party payor is a time- consuming and costly process that could require us to provide to each payor supporting scientific, clinical and cost- effectiveness data for the use of our products on a payor-by-payor basis, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be obtained. Even if we obtain coverage for a given product, the resulting reimbursement payment rates might not be adequate for us to achieve or consultants,sustain profitability or may failrequire co-payments that patients find unacceptably high. Further, even if one payor provides coverage for a given product, other payors may not provide coverage for that product. Additionally, third-party payors may not cover, or suffer security breaches,provide adequate reimbursement for, long-term follow-up evaluations required following the use of product candidates. Patients are unlikely to use our product candidates unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of our product candidates. Because our product candidates may have a higher cost of goods than conventional therapies, and may require long-term follow-up evaluations, the risk that coverage and reimbursement rates may be inadequate for us to achieve profitability may be greater. There is significant uncertainty related to insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. It is difficult to predict at this time what third-party payors will decide with respect to the coverage and reimbursement for our product candidates.

Payment methodologies may be subject to changes in healthcare legislation and regulatory initiatives. For example, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 required that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the agency responsible for administering the Medicare program (“CMS”) reduce the Medicare clinical laboratory fee schedule by 2% in 2013, which served as a base for 2014 and subsequent years. In addition, effective January 1, 2014, CMS also began bundling the Medicare

42

payments for certain laboratory tests ordered while a patient received services in a hospital outpatient setting. Additional state and federal healthcare reform measures are expected to be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for certain pharmaceutical products or additional pricing pressures.

Moreover, increasing efforts by governmental and third-party payors in the United States and abroad to cap or reduce healthcare costs may cause such organizations to limit both coverage and the level of reimbursement for newly approved products and, as a material disruptionresult, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for our product candidates. There has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. For example, in October 2017, California became the first state to pass legislation requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to announce planned drug price increases. While this legislation does not directly affect drug prices, it puts further pressure on pharmaceutical manufacturers in setting prices. At least one state, Oregon, has recently passed a similar law, requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to disclose cost components, and other states are likely to follow. Additionally, the Trump administration recently released a “Blueprint”, or plan, to reduce the cost of drugs. The Trump administrations’ Blueprint contains certain measures that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is already working to implement. At the state level, legislatures are increasingly passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of any of our businessproduct candidates due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations, cost containment initiatives and operations or could subject us to sanctionsadditional legislative changes.

Ongoing healthcare legislative and penalties that couldregulatory reform measures may have a material adverse effect on our reputationbusiness and results of operations.

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

Despite

In the United States, there have been and continue to be a number of legislative initiatives to contain healthcare costs. For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), was passed, which substantially changes the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacts the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The ACA, among other things, subjects biological products to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars, addresses a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, increases the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extends the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, establishes annual fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs, and creates a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 50% point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D.

Since January 2017, President Trump has signed two Executive Orders designed to delay the implementation of security measures,certain provisions of the ACA or otherwise circumvent some of the requirements for health insurance mandated by the ACA. One Executive Order directs federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the ACA to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision of the ACA that would impose a fiscal or regulatory burden on states, individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. The second Executive Order terminates the cost-sharing subsidies that reimburse insurers under the ACA. On June 14, 2018, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the federal government was not required to pay more than $12 billion in ACA risk corridor payments to third-party payors who argued were owed to them. The effects of this gap in reimbursement on third-party payors, the viability of the ACA marketplace, providers, and potentially our internal computer systems and those of our current and future CROs, CMOs, licensees, collaborators and other contractors and consultants are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. While webusiness, are not awareyet known.

Moreover, on May 30, 2018, the Right to Try Act, was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational new drug products that have completed a Phase I clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA permission under the FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a drug manufacturer to make its drug products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act, but the manufacturer must develop an internal policy and respond to patient requests according to that policy. We expect that additional foreign, federal and state

43

healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any such material system failure, accident or security breach to date, if such an event were to occurof which could limit the amounts that federal and cause interruptions in our operations, itstate governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in a material disruptionlimited coverage and reimbursement and reduced demand for our products, once approved, or additional pricing pressures.

These laws, and future state and federal healthcare reform measures may be adopted in the future, any of our development programs and our business operations. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed, on-going or future clinical trials couldwhich may result in delaysadditional reductions in our regulatory approval effortsMedicare and significant costs to recover or reproduceother healthcare funding and otherwise affect the data. Likewise,prices we rely on third parties to manufacture certain of our drug candidates and conduct clinical trials, and similar events relating to their computer systems could also have a material adverse effect on our business. To the extent thatmay obtain for any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liabilities and the further development and commercialization of our product candidates could be delayed.for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used.

European Union drug marketing and reimbursement regulations may materially affect our ability to market and receive coverage for our products in the European member states.

We use and store customer, vendor, employee and business partnerintend to seek approval to market our product candidates in both the United States and in certain instances patient, personally identifiable informationselected foreign jurisdictions. If we obtain approval in one or more foreign jurisdictions for our product candidates, we will be subject to rules and regulations in those jurisdictions. In some foreign countries, particularly those in the ordinary courseEuropean Union, the pricing of pharmaceutical products is subject to governmental control and other market regulations which could put pressure on the pricing and usage of our business. We are subject to various domestic and international privacy and security regulations, including but not limited to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Actproduct candidates. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after obtaining marketing approval of 1996 (“HIPAA”), which mandates, among other things, the adoption of uniform standards for the electronic exchange of information in common healthcare transactions, as well as standards relating to the privacy and security of individually identifiable health information, which require the adoption of administrative, physical and technical safeguards to protect such information.a product candidate. In addition, many states have enacted comparablemarket acceptance and sales of our product candidates will depend significantly on the availability of adequate coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors for our product candidates and may be affected by existing and future healthcare reform measures.

Much like the Anti-Kickback Statute prohibition in the United States, the provision of benefits or advantages to physicians to induce or encourage the prescription, recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order or use of medicinal products is also prohibited in the European Union. The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians is governed by the national anti-bribery laws addressingof European Union Member States. Infringement of these laws could result in substantial fines and imprisonment.

Payments made to physicians in certain European Union Member States must be publicly disclosed. Moreover, agreements with physicians often must be the privacysubject of prior notification and securityapproval by the physician’s employer, his or her competent professional organization and/or the regulatory authorities of health information, somethe individual European Union Member States. These requirements are provided in the national laws, industry codes or professional codes of which are more stringent than HIPAA.conduct, applicable in the European Union Member States. Failure to comply with these standards,requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment.

In addition, in most foreign countries, including the European Economic Area, the proposed pricing for a computer security breachdrug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing drug pricing and reimbursement vary widely from country to country. For example, the European Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. Reference pricing used by various European Union member states and parallel distribution, or cyber-attackarbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states, can further reduce prices. A member state may approve a specific price for the medicinal product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. In some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial or other studies that affectscompare the cost-effectiveness of any of our systemsproduct candidates to other available therapies in order to obtain or resultsmaintain reimbursement or pricing approval. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products. Historically, products launched in the unauthorized releaseEuropean Union do not follow price structures of proprietarythe United States and generally prices tend to be significantly lower. Publication of discounts by third-party payors or personallyauthorities may lead to further pressure on the prices or reimbursement levels within the country of publication and other countries. If pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels or if reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, our revenues from sales by us or our strategic partners and the potential profitability of any of our product candidates in those countries would be negatively affected.

European data collection is governed by restrictive regulations governing the use, processing, and cross-border transfer of personal information.

The collection and use of personal health data in the European Union (“EU”), was previously governed by the provisions of the Data Protection Directive, which has been replaced by the General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (“GDPR”) as of May 2018.

The GDPR imposes a broad range of strict requirements on companies subject to the GDPR, such as us, including requirements relating to having legal bases for processing personal information relating to identifiable individuals and transferring such information outside the European Economic Area, (“EEA”), including to the United States, providing details to those individuals

44

regarding the processing of their personal information, keeping personal information secure, having data processing agreements with third parties who process personal information, responding to individuals’ requests to exercise their rights in respect of their personal information, reporting security breaches involving personal data to the competent national data protection authority and affected individuals, appointing data protection officers, conducting data protection impact assessments, and record-keeping. The GDPR substantially increases the penalties to which we could be subject in the event of any non-compliance, including fines of up to 10 million Euros or up to 2% of our total worldwide annual turnover for certain comparatively minor offenses, or up to 20 million Euros or up to 4% of our total worldwide annual turnover for more serious offenses. Given the new law, we face uncertainty as to the exact interpretation of the new requirements, and we may be unsuccessful in implementing all measures required by data protection authorities or courts in interpretation of the new law.

In particular, national laws of member states of the EU are in the process of being adapted to the requirements under the GDPR, thereby implementing national laws which may partially deviate from the GDPR and impose different obligations from country to country, so that we do not expect to operate in a uniform legal landscape in the EU. Also, in the field of handling genetic data, the GDPR specifically allows national laws to impose additional and more specific requirements or restrictions, and European laws have historically differed quite substantially in this field, leading to additional uncertainty.

If we begin conducting trials in the EEA, we must also ensure that we maintain adequate safeguards to enable the transfer of personal data outside of the EEA, in particular to the United States in compliance with European data protection laws including the GDPR. We expect that we will continue to face uncertainty as to whether our efforts to comply with our obligations under European privacy laws will be sufficient. If we are investigated by a European data protection authority, we may face fines and other penalties. Any such investigation or charges by European data protection authorities could have a negative effect on our existing business and on our ability to attract and retain new clients or pharmaceutical partners. We may also experience hesitancy, reluctance, or refusal by European or multi-national clients or pharmaceutical partners to continue to use our products and solutions due to the potential risk exposure as a result of the current (and, in particular, future) data protection obligations imposed on them by certain data protection authorities in interpretation of current law, including the GDPR. Such clients or pharmaceutical partners may also view any alternative approaches to compliance as being too costly, too burdensome, too legally uncertain, or otherwise objectionable and therefore decide not to do business with us. Any of the foregoing could materially harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Laws and regulations governing any international operations may preclude us from developing, manufacturing and selling certain products outside of the United States and require us to develop and implement costly compliance programs.

Because we have operations outside of the United States, we must dedicate additional resources to comply with numerous laws and regulations in each jurisdiction in which we plan to operate. The FCPA prohibits any U.S. individual or business from paying, offering, authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the United States to comply with certain accounting provisions requiring the company to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations.

Compliance with the FCPA is expensive and difficult, particularly in countries in which corruption is a recognized problem. We, through our CROs, are conducting clinical trials in countries that Transparency International has identified as “perceived as more corrupt”, including, Brazil, Chile, Ukraine and Georgia.  In addition, the FCPA presents particular challenges in the pharmaceutical industry, because, in many countries, hospitals are operated by the government, and doctors and other hospital employees are considered foreign officials. Certain payments to hospitals in connection with clinical trials and other work have been deemed to be improper payments to government officials and have led to FCPA enforcement actions.

Various laws, regulations and executive orders also restrict the use and dissemination outside of the United States, or the sharing with certain non-U.S. nationals, of information classified for national security purposes, as well as certain products and technical data relating to those products. If we expand our presence outside of the United States, it will require us to dedicate additional resources to comply with these laws, and these laws may preclude us from developing, manufacturing, or selling certain products and product candidates outside of the United States, which could limit our growth potential and increase our development costs.

The failure to comply with laws governing international business practices may result in substantial civil and criminal penalties and civilsuspension or debarment from government contracting. The SEC also may suspend or bar issuers from trading securities on U.S. exchanges for violations of the FCPA’s accounting provisions.

45

We are subject to certain U.S. and foreign anti-corruption, anti-money laundering, export control, sanctions, and other trade laws and regulations. We can face serious consequences for violations.

Among other matters, U.S. and foreign anti-corruption, anti-money laundering, export control, sanctions, and other trade laws and regulations, which are collectively referred to as Trade Laws, prohibit companies and their employees, agents, clinical research organizations, legal counsel, accountants, consultants, contractors, and other partners from authorizing, promising, offering, providing, soliciting, or receiving directly or indirectly, corrupt or improper payments or anything else of value to or from recipients in the public or private sector. Violations of Trade Laws can result in substantial criminal fines and civil penalties, imprisonment, the loss of trade privileges, debarment, tax reassessments, breach of contract and fraud litigation, reputational harm, and other consequences. We have direct or indirect interactions with officials and employees of government agencies or government-affiliated hospitals, universities, and other organizations. We also expect our reputationnon-U.S. activities to increase in time. We plan to engage third parties for clinical trials and/or to obtain necessary permits, licenses, patent registrations, and other regulatory approvals and we can be held liable for the corrupt or other illegal activities of our personnel, agents, or partners, even if we do not explicitly authorize or have prior knowledge of such activities.

Inadequate funding for the FDA and other government agencies could hinder their ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, prevent new products and services from being developed or commercialized in a timely manner or otherwise prevent those agencies from performing normal business functions on which the operation of our business may rely, which could negatively impact our business.

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

Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new drugs to be exposedreviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, including most recently from December 22, 2018 to January 25, 2019, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical FDA and other government employees and stop critical activities. If a riskprolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of loss or litigationthe FDA to timely review and potential liability,process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operationsbusiness.

If we do not comply with environmental laws and financial condition.regulations, we may incur significant costs and potential disruption to our business.

We use or may use hazardous, infectious, and radioactive materials, and recombinant DNA in our operations, which have the potential of being harmful to human health and safety or the environment. We store these hazardous (flammable, corrosive, toxic), infectious, and radioactive materials, and various wastes resulting from their use, at our facilities pending use and ultimate disposal. We are highly reliant on certain memberssubject to a variety of federal, state, and local laws and regulations governing use, generation, storage, handling, and disposal of these materials. We may incur significant costs complying with both current and future environmental health and safety laws and regulations. In particular, we are subject to regulation by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Department of Transportation, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the International Air Transportation Association, and various state and local agencies. At any time, one or more of the aforementioned agencies could adopt regulations that may affect our operations. We are also subject to regulation under the Toxic Substances Control Act and the Resource Conservation Development programs.

Although we believe that our current procedures and programs for handling, storage, and disposal of these materials comply with federal, state, and local laws and regulations, we cannot eliminate the risk of accidents involving contamination from these materials. Although we have a workers’ compensation liability policy, we could be held liable for resulting damages in the event of an accident or accidental release, and such damages could be substantially in excess of any available insurance coverage and could substantially disrupt our business.

If we or our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners and vendors fail to comply with laws or regulations, it could adversely impact our reputation, business and stock price.

We are exposed to the risk of employee fraud or other misconduct our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners and vendors. Misconduct by employees could include intentional and/or negligent failures to comply with FDA regulations, to provide accurate information to the FDA, to comply with manufacturing standards we have established, to comply with federal and state health care fraud and abuse, transparency, and/or data privacy laws and regulations (including the California Consumer Privacy Act) and security laws and regulations, to report financial information or data accurately or to disclose

46

unauthorized activities to us. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices; to promote transparency; and to protect the privacy and security of patient data. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. If we obtain FDA approval of any of our management team. In addition,product candidates and begin commercializing those products in the United States, our potential exposure under such laws will increase significantly, and our costs associated with compliance with such laws are also likely to increase. These laws may impact, among other things, our current activities with principal investigators and research patients, as well as proposed and future sales, marketing and education programs.

While we have limited internal resources and if we fail to recruit and/or retain the services of key employees and external consultants as needed,adopted a corporate compliance program, we may not be able to achieveprotect against all potential issues of noncompliance. Efforts to ensure that our strategicbusiness complies with all applicable healthcare laws and operational objectives.regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, or case law involving applicable laws and regulations.

Garo H. Armen, Ph.D.,Employee misconduct could also involve the Chairmanimproper use or disclosure of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. In addition, during the course of our Board of Directorsoperations, our directors, executives and our Chief Executive Officer who co-founded the Company in 1994, is integralemployees may have access to building our company and developing our technology. If Dr. Armen is unable or unwilling to continue his relationship with Agenus,material, nonpublic information regarding our business, may be adversely impacted.our results of operations or potential transactions we are considering. We have an employment agreement with Dr. Armen, and he plays an important role in our day-to-day activities. We do not carry a key employee insurance policy for Dr. Armen or any other employee.

Our future growth success depends to a significant extent on the skills, experience and efforts of our executive officers and key members of our clinical and scientific staff. We face intense competition for qualified individuals from other pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, as well as academic and other research institutions. We may be unable to retain our current personnel or attract or assimilate other highly qualified management and clinical personnel in the future on acceptable terms. The loss of any or all of these individuals could harm our business and could impair our ability to support our collaboration partners or our growth generally. If our management is unable to effectively manage our growth, our expenses may increase more than expected, our ability to generate revenue could be reduced and we may not be able to implementprevent a director, executive or employee from trading in our business strategy. Moreover, in connection with our 2017 restructuring activities, certain positionscommon stock on our management team were eliminated and Dr. Robert Stein retired from his role as Presidentthe basis of, R&Dor while having access to, becomematerial, nonpublic information. If a senior R&D advisordirector, executive or employee was to the Company. Any key capability gaps identified following this restructuringbe investigated, or an action was to be brought against a director, executive or employee for insider trading, it could have a material adverse effectnegative impact on our reputation and our stock price. Such a claim, with or without merit, could also result in substantial expenditures of time and money, and divert the attention of our management team.

Risks associated with doing business financial condition and results of operations.internationally could negatively affect our business.

We intend to advance our cell therapy business through our new subsidiary, AgenTus Therapeutics, eventually with separate funding. Moving intellectual property assets into AgenTus Therapeutics in foreign jurisdictions couldcurrently have adverse tax consequences,research and there is no guarantee that we will be able to attract external funding. Moreover, even if the business is funded, there is no guarantee that it will be successful.

We are currently in the process of pursuing external funding and partnership opportunities to advance AgenTus Therapeutics, but Agenus is currently funding such operations. There is no guarantee that external funding will be available. If funding is available, there is no guarantee that it will be on attractive or acceptable terms, or that it will be adequate to advance the business to an inflection point for additional funding. Similarly, there is no guarantee that partnership opportunities will be available on attractive terms, if at all. If external funding is not available, we may be forced to either retire these programs or use internal resources to advance them. In addition, our cell therapy assets are pre-clinical. Even if adequate funding and partnership opportunities are available, there is no guarantee that we will be successful in advancing one or more product candidates into and through clinical development. In addition,

21

most of the efforts being made on behalf of AgenTus Therapeutics are being led by a separate AgenTus chief executive officer, utilizing Agenus’ management team and internal resources. The current structure could distract management and divert Agenus resources from Agenus’ own core pipeline and programs.

The cell therapy assets necessary to enable AgenTus Therapeutics are currently owned or controlled by Agenusdevelopment operations in the United StatesKingdom (“UK”), and Switzerland. In connection with capitalizing AgenTus Therapeutics, these assets will be transferred or licensed to new legal entities within the United States and Europe. Transferring these assets or licensing them on an exclusive basis would require that taxes be paid based on the fair market value of the assets. While we expect to havepursue pathways to develop and commercialize our product candidates in both U.S. and ex-U.S. jurisdictions. Various risks associated with foreign operations may impact our success. Possible risks of foreign operations include fluctuations in the value of foreign and domestic currencies, requirements to comply with various jurisdictional requirements such as data privacy regulations, disruptions in the import, export, and transportation of patient tumors and our products or product candidates, the product and service needs of foreign customers, difficulties in building and managing foreign relationships, the performance of our licensees or collaborators, geopolitical instability, unexpected regulatory, economic, or political changes in foreign and domestic markets, including without limitation any resulting from the UK’s planned or actual withdrawal from the EUor our current political regime, and limitations on the flexibility of our operations and costs imposed by local labor laws.  

The exit of the UK from the European Union may materially affect the regulatory regime that governs our handling of EU personal data and expose us to legal and business risks under European data privacy and protection law.

On January 31, 2020, the UK exited the EU, commonly known as Brexit. Pursuant to the Withdrawal Agreement that has been ratified by both the UK and EU, EU law, including GDPR will continue to apply in the UK until December 31, 2020.  The Withdrawal Agreement provides that the UK and EU can elect to extend such transition period by up to two years.

On and after, January 1, 2021, any transfers of personal data to the United Kingdom will then be subject to the requirements of Chapter V of the GDPR and of the Law Enforcement Directive and absent an adequacy finding under GDPR, transfers of personal data from the EU to the UK, including to our facility in Cambridge, UK, would be illegal without adequate net operating lossessafeguards provided for under EC-approved mechanisms, such as current standard contractual clauses or, if approved in the future, an EU-UK privacy shield similar to offsetthe current framework in place between the EU and the United States. The extensive authority of UK intelligence and law enforcement agencies, including to conduct surveillance on personal data flows, could reduce the likelihood that the EC would give the UK an adequacy finding and reduce the likelihood that the EC would approve an EU-UK privacy shield. Accordingly, we would be exposed to legal risk for any tax liabilities, thereof our EU-UK personal data transfers, including those that involve sensitive data such as patient and genetic data. Given the uncertainties surrounding the UK’s departure from the EU, it is no guaranteedifficult to precisely identify or quantify the risks described above.

Additionally, it is possible that, this will beover time, the case in all relevant jurisdictions. Moreover, we have previously disclosed our interestUK Data Protection Act could become less aligned with the GDPR, which could require us to implement different compliance measures for the UK and the European Union and result in potentially issuingenhanced compliance obligations for EU personal data.

As a tax-free dividendresult, Bexit adds legal risk, uncertainty, complexity and cost to Agenus’ stockholders in the formour handling of stock of AgenTus Therapeutics. There is no guarantee that any such dividend will be tax-free or that it will be issued at all, or the timing thereof.EU personal information and our privacy and data security compliance programs. If we issue a dividend in the form of stock, there could be adverse tax consequences for certain ofdo not successfully manage such risk, our stockholders.

Calamities, power shortages or power interruptions could disrupt our business and materially adversely affect our operations.

If a natural disaster, power outage or other event occurred that prevented us from using all or a significant portion of our facilities, that damaged critical infrastructure (such as our manufacturing facility) or that otherwise disrupted operations, itprospects may be difficult or, in certain cases, impossible for us to continue certain activities, such as for example our manufacturing capabilities, for a substantial period of time. We own an antibody pilot plant manufacturing facility and lease additional office space in Berkeley, CA. This location is in an area of seismic activity near active earthquake faults. Any earthquake, terrorist attack, fire, power shortage or other calamity affecting our facilities or those of third parties upon whom we depend may disrupt our business and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. The disaster recovery and business continuity plans we have in place currently are limited and are unlikely to prove adequate in the event of a serious disaster or similar event. We may incur substantial expenses and delays as a result of the limited nature of our disaster recovery and business continuity plans, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.materially harmed.

47

Comprehensive tax reform legislation could adversely affect our business and financial condition.

On December 22, 2017, President Trump signed into law the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” (the “TJCA”“TCJA”) that significantly reformsreformed the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”).amended. The TCJA, among other things, includes changes to U.S. federal tax rates, imposes significant additional limitations on the deductibility of interest and net operating loss carryforwards, allows for the expensing of capital expenditures, and puts into effect the migration from a “worldwide” system of taxation to a territorial system. Our net deferred tax assets and liabilities will bewere revalued at the newly enacted U.S. corporate rate. We dodid not expect to recognize any tax expense in the year of enactment as our net deferred tax assets have a full valuation allowance recorded.  We continue

Our ability to examine the impact this tax reform legislationuse net operating losses and research and development credits to offset future taxable income may have on our business. The impact of this tax reform is uncertain and could be adverse.subject to certain limitations.

Risks Related to Regulation of the Biopharmaceutical Industry

The drug development and approval process is uncertain, time-consuming, and expensive.

Drug development, including non-clinical testing and clinical development, and the process of obtaining regulatory approvals for new therapeutic products, is lengthy, expensive, and uncertain. For example, asAs of December 31, 2017,2019, we had spent more than 20 yearsU.S. federal and $684.6state net operating loss, or NOL, carryforwards of $646.3 million on ourand $184.9 million, respectively, which may be available to offset future taxable income. The federal NOLs include $607.7 million which expire at various dates through 2037 and $38.6 million which carryforward indefinitely. The state NOLs expire at various dates through 2038. As of December 31, 2019, we also had U.S. federal and state research and development programs. The developmenttax credit carryforwards of $8.8 million and regulatory approval processes also can vary substantially based on the therapeutic area, type, complexity,$9.4 million, respectively, which may be available to offset future tax liabilities and noveltybegin to expire in 2020 and 2033, respectively. In addition, in general, under Sections 382 and 383 of the product. We must provide regulatory authoritiesCode and corresponding provisions of state law, a corporation that undergoes an “ownership change” is subject to limitations on its ability to utilize its pre-change net operating loss carryforwards or tax credits, or NOLs or credits, to offset future taxable income or taxes. For these purposes, an ownership change generally occurs where the aggregate stock ownership of one or more stockholders or groups of stockholders who owns at least 5% of a corporation’s stock increases its ownership by more than 50 percentage points over its lowest ownership percentage within a specified testing period. Our existing NOLs or credits may be subject to limitations arising from previous ownership changes, including in connection with manufacturing, product characterization,our recent private placements, IPO and pre-clinicalother transactions. In addition, future changes in our stock ownership, many of which are outside of our control, could result in an ownership change under Sections 382 and clinical data demonstrating that our product candidates are safe and effective before they can be approved for commercial sale. It may take us many years to complete our testing, and failure can occur at any stage. Results of pre-clinical studies do not necessarily predict clinical results, and promising results in early clinical studies might not be confirmed in later studies. Any pre-clinical or clinical test may fail to produce results satisfactory to regulatory authorities for many reasons, including but not limited to emerging manufacturing or control issues, limitations of pre-clinical assessments, difficulties to enroll a sufficient number of patients, changing therapeutic landscape or failure to prospectively identify the benefit/risk profile383 of the new product. Pre-clinicalCode and clinical data can be interpreted in different ways, which could delay, limit, or prevent regulatory approval. Negative or inconclusive results from a pre-clinical study or clinical trial, adverse medical events during a clinical trial, or safety issues emerging with products of the same class of drug could require additional studies or cause a program to be terminated, even if other studies or trials relating to the program are successful. We or the FDA, other regulatory agencies, or an institutional review board may suspend or terminate human clinical trials at any time on various grounds.

The timing and success of a clinical trial is dependent on obtaining and maintaining sufficient cash resources, successful production of clinical trial material, enrolling sufficient patients in a timely manner, avoiding or mitigating serious or significant adverse patient reactions, and demonstrating efficacy of the product candidate in order to support a favorable risk versus benefit profile, among other considerations. The timing and success of our clinical trials, in particular, are also dependent on clinical sites and

22

regulatory authorities accepting each trial’s protocol, statistical analysis plan, product characterization tests, and final clinical results. In addition, regulatory authorities may request additional information or data that is not readily available. Delays in our ability to respond to such requests would delay, and failure to adequately address concerns would prevent, our commercialization efforts. We have encountered in the past, andutilize NOLs or credits may encounter in the future, delays in initiating trial sites and enrolling patients into our clinical trials. Future enrollment delays will postpone the dates by which we expect to complete the impacted trials and the potential receipt of regulatory approval. There is no guarantee we will successfully initiate and/be impaired. Our NOLs or complete our clinical trials.

Delays or difficulties in obtaining regulatory approvals or clearances for our product candidates may:

Delays or failures in our receiving regulatory approval for our product candidates in a timely manner may result in us having to incur additional development expense and subject us to having to secure additional financing. As a result,also be impaired under state law. Accordingly, we may not be able to commercialize themutilize a material portion of our NOLs or credits. Furthermore, our ability to utilize our NOLs or credits is conditioned upon our attaining profitability and generating U. S. federal and state taxable income. As described above under “Risk factors—Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital,” we have incurred significant net losses since our inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future; and therefore, we do not know whether or when we will generate the U.S. federal or state taxable income necessary to utilize our NOLs or credits that are subject to limitation by Sections 382 and 383 of the Code. The reduction of the corporate tax rate under the TCJA caused a reduction in the time frame anticipated,economic benefit of our net operating loss carryforwards and our businessother deferred tax assets available to us. Under the TCJA, net operating loss carryforwards generated after December 31, 2017 will suffer.

Even if we or our partners receive marketing approval for our product candidates, such product approvals couldnot be subject to restrictions or withdrawals. Regulatory requirements are subject to change. Further, even if we or our partners receive marketing approval, we may not receive sufficient coverage and adequate reimbursement for our products.expiration.

Regulatory authorities generally approve products for particular indications. If an approval is for a limited indication, this limitation reduces the size of the potential market for that product. Product approvals, once granted, are subject to continual review and periodic inspections by regulatory authorities. Our operations and practices are subject to regulation and scrutiny by the United States government, as well as governments of any other countries in which we do business or conduct activities. Later discovery of previously unknown problems or safety issues, and/or failure to comply with domestic or foreign laws, knowingly or unknowingly, can result in various adverse consequences, including, among other things, possible delay in approval or refusal to approve a product, warning letters, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, recalls or seizures of products, total or partial suspension of production, refusal of the government to renew marketing applications, complete withdrawal of a marketing application, corrective action requirements, and/or criminal prosecution, withdrawal of an approved product from the market, and/or exclusion from government health care programs. Such regulatory enforcement could have a direct and negative impact on the product for which approval is granted and could have a negative impact on the approval of any pending applications for marketing approval of new drugs or supplements to approved applications.

Because we operate in a highly regulated industry, regulatory authorities could take enforcement action against us in connection with our licensees’ or collaborators’, and/or our business and marketing activities for various reasons. For example, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prohibits U.S. companies and their representatives from offering, promising, authorizing, or making payments to foreign governmental officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business abroad.

From time to time, new legislation is passed into law that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the approval, manufacturing, and marketing of products regulated by the FDA and other foreign health authorities. Additionally, regulations and guidance are often revised or reinterpreted by health agencies in ways that may significantly affect our business and our products. It is impossible to predict whether further legislative changes will be enacted, or whether regulations, guidance, or interpretations will change, and what the impact of such changes, if any, may be. For example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively the “ACA”), enacted in March 2010, substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacted the pharmaceutical industry. With regard to pharmaceutical products, among other things, ACA is expected to expand, increase, and change the methodology regarding industry rebates for drugs covered under Medicaid programs; impose an annual, nondeductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports specific branded prescription drugs and biologic agents, apportioned among those entities according to market share in certain government healthcare programs; expand eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs by, among other things, allowing states to offer Medicaid coverage to certain individuals with income at or below 133% of the federal poverty level; expand the entities eligible for discounts under the Public Health Service pharmaceutical pricing program; create a new Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research; and make changes to the coverage requirements under the Medicare D program. Significant legislative changes to the ACA also appear possible in the 115^th U.S. Congress under the Trump Administration.

We expect both government and private health plans to continue to require healthcare providers, including healthcare providers

23

that may one day purchase our products, to contain costs and demonstrate the value of the therapies they provide. Even if our product candidates are approved, the commercial success of our products will depend substantially on the extent to which they are covered by third-party payors, including government health authorities and private health insurers. In the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors, and coverage and reimbursement for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. If coverage and reimbursement are not available, or reimbursement is available only to limited levels, we or our collaborators may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates.

New data from our research and development activities, and/or resource considerations could modify our strategy and result in the need to adjust our projections of timelines and costs of programs.

Because we are focused on novel technologies, our research and development activities, including our nonclinical studies and clinical trials, involve the ongoing discovery of new facts and the generation of new data, based on which we determine next steps for a relevant program. These developments can occur with varying frequency and constitute the basis on which our business is conducted. We make determinations on an ongoing basis as to which of these facts or data will influence timelines and costs of programs. We may not always be able to make such judgments accurately, which may increase the costs we incur attempting to commercialize our product candidates. We monitor the likelihood of success of our initiatives and we may need to discontinue funding of such activities if they do not prove to be commercially feasible, due to our limited resources.

We may need to successfully address a number of technological challenges in order to complete development of our product candidates. Moreover, these product candidates may not be effective in treating any disease or may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities, or other characteristics that may preclude our obtaining regulatory approvals or prevent or limit commercial use.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property Rights

If we are unable to obtain and enforce patent protection for our product candidates and related technology, our business could be materially harmed.

We rely upon a combination of patents, trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect the intellectual property related to our product candidates and technology. Any disclosure to or misappropriation by third parties of our confidential proprietary information could enable competitors to duplicate or surpass our technological achievements, eroding our competitive position in the market. Our patent applications may not result in issued patents, and, even if issued, the patents may be challenged and invalidated. Moreover, our patents and patent applications may not be sufficiently broad to prevent others from practicing our technologies or developing competing products. We also face the risk that others may independently develop similar or alternative technologies or may design around our proprietary property.

Issued patents may be challenged, narrowed, invalidated or circumvented. In addition, court decisions may introduce uncertainty in the enforceability or scope of patents owned by biotechnology companies. The legal systems of certain countries do not favor the aggressive enforcement of patents, and the laws of foreign countries may not allow us to protect our inventions with patents to the same extent as the laws of the United States. Because patent applications in the United States and many foreign jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all, and because publications of discoveries in scientific literature lag behind actual discoveries, we cannot be certain that we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our issued patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for protection of the inventions set forth in our patents or patent applications. As a result, we may not be able to obtain or maintain protection for certain inventions. Therefore, the enforceability and scope of our patents in the United States and in foreign countries cannot be predicted with certainty and, as a result, any patents that we own, or license may not provide sufficient protection against competitors. We may not be able to obtain or maintain patent protection from our pending patent applications, from those we may file in the future, or from those we may license from third parties.

48

Moreover, even if we are able to obtain patent protection, such patent protection may be of insufficient scope to achieve our business objectives.

Patent terms may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on our product candidates for an adequate amount of time. Patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years after its effective filing date. Various extensions may be available; however, the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Without patent protection for our product candidates, we may be open to competition from biosimilar or generic versions of our product candidates. Furthermore, the product development timeline for biotechnology products is lengthy and it is possible that our issued patents covering our product candidates in the United States and other jurisdictions may expire prior to commercial launch. For example, if we encounter delays in our development efforts, including our clinical trials, the period of time during which we could market our product candidates under patent protection could be reduced.

Our strategy depends on our ability to identify and seek patent protection for our discoveries. This process is expensive and time consuming, and we and our current or future licensors or licensees may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable

24

patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner or in all jurisdictions where protection may be commercially advantageous. It is also possible that we or our current licensors or licensees, or any future licensors or licensees, may not identify patentable aspects of inventions made in the course of development and commercialization activities in time to obtain patent protection on them. Therefore, these and any of our patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. Defects of form in the preparation or filing of our patents or patent applications may exist, or may arise in the future, for example with respect to proper priority claims, inventorship, etc. If we or our current licensors or licensees, or any future licensors or licensees, fail to establish, maintain or protect such patents and other intellectual property rights, such rights may be reduced or eliminated. If our current licensors or licensees, or any future licensors or licensees, are not fully cooperative or disagree with us as to the prosecution, maintenance or enforcement of any patent rights, such patent rights could be compromised. 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. Despite our efforts to protect our proprietary rights, unauthorized parties may be able to obtain and use information that we regard as proprietary. The issuance of a patent does not ensure that it is valid or enforceable, so even if we obtain patents, they may not be valid or enforceable against third parties. In addition, the issuance of a patent does not give us the right to practice the patented invention. Third parties may have blocking patents that could prevent us from marketing our own patented product and practicing our own patented technology. Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competition from third parties, which may have an adverse impact on our business.

The patent landscapelandscapes in the fieldfields of therapeutic antibody, vaccine, adjuvant and adoptive cell therapy development, manufacture and commercialization isare crowded. For example, we are aware of third party patents directed to methods for identifying and producing therapeutic antibodies.products such as antibodies, vaccines, adjuvants and adoptive cell therapies. We are also aware of third party patents directed to antibodies toproducts targeting numerous targetsantigens for which we also seek to identify, develop, and commercialize antibodies.products. For example, some patents claim antibodiesproducts based on competitive binding with existing antibodies,products, some claim antibodiesproducts based on specifying sequence or other structural information, and some claim various methods of discovery, production, or use of such antibodies.products.

These or other third-party patents could impact our freedom to operate in relation to our technology platforms, as well as in relation to development and commercialization of antibodiesproducts identified by us as therapeutic candidates. As we discover and develop our candidate antibodies,candidates, we will continue to conduct analyses of these third-party patents to determine whether we believe we might infringe them, and if so, whether they would be likely to be deemed valid and enforceable if challenged. If we determine that a license for a given patent or family of patents is necessary or desirable, there can be no guarantee that a license would be available on favorable terms, or at all. Inability to obtain a license on favorable terms, should such a license be determined to be necessary or desirable, could, without limitation, result in increased costs to design around the third-party patents, delay product launch, or result in cancellation of the affected program or cessation of use of the affected technology.

Third parties may also seek to market biosimilar versions of any approved products. Alternatively, third parties may seek approval to market their own products similar to or otherwise competitive with our products. In these circumstances, we may need to defend and/or assert our patents, including by filing lawsuits alleging patent infringement. In any of these types of proceedings, a court or agency with jurisdiction may find our patents invalid and/or unenforceable. Even if we have valid and enforceable patents, these patents still may not provide protection against competing products or processes sufficient to achieve our business objectives.

We own, co-own or have exclusive rights to approximately 35 issued United States patents and approximately 120 issued foreign patents. We also own, co-own or have exclusive rights to approximately 30 pending United States patent applications and approximately 125 pending foreign patent applications. However, our patents may not protect us against our competitors. Our patent positions, and those of other biopharmaceutical, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, are generally uncertain and involve complex legal, scientific, and factual questions. The standards which the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) uses to grant patents, and the standards which courts use to interpret patents, are not always applied predictably or uniformly and can change, particularly as new technologies develop. Consequently, the level of protection, if any, that will be provided by our patents if we attempt to enforce them and they are challenged, is uncertain. In addition, the type and extent of patent claims that will be issued to us in the future is uncertain. Any patents that are issued may not contain claims that permit us to stop competitors from using similar technology.

Through our acquisitions of 4-AB, PhosImmune and certain assets of Celexion, we own, co-own, or have exclusive rights to a number of patents and patent applications directed to various methods and compositions, including methods for identifying therapeutic antibodies and product candidates arising out of such entities’ technology platforms. In particular, we own patents and patent applications relating to our Retrocyte Display^TM technology platform, a high throughput antibody expression platform for the identification of fully-human and humanized monoclonal antibodies. This patent family is projected to expire between 2029 and 2031. Through our acquisition of PhosImmune, we own, co-own, or have exclusive rights to patents and patent applications directed to various methods and compositions, including a patent directed to methods for identifying phosphorylated proteins using mass

49

spectrometry. This patent is projected to expire in 2023. We also own patents and patent applications relating to the SECANT^® platform, a platform used for the generation of novel monoclonal antibodies. This patent family is projected to expire between 2028 and 2029. In addition, as we advance our research and development efforts with our institutional and corporate collaborators, we are

25

seeking patent protection for newly identified therapeutic antibodies and product candidates. We can provide no assurance that any of our patents, including the patents that we acquired or in-licensed in connection with our acquisitions of 4-AB, PhosImmune and certain assets of Celexion, will have commercial value, or that any of our existing or future patent applications, including the patent applications that we acquired or in-licensed in connection with our acquisitions of 4-AB, PhosImmune and certain assets of Celexion, will result in the issuance of valid and enforceable patents.

Our issued patents covering Prophage vaccine and methods of use thereof, alone or in combination with other agents, expired or will expire at various dates between 2015 and 2024. In particular, our issued U.S. patents covering Prophage composition of matter expired in 2015. In addition, our issued patents covering QS-21 Stimulon composition of matter expired in 2008. We continue to explore means of extending the life cycle of our patent portfolio.

The patent position of biopharmaceutical, pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies, including ours, is generally uncertain and involves complex legal and factual considerations. The standards which the USPTO and its foreign counterparts use to grant patents are not always applied predictably or uniformly and can change. There is also no uniform, worldwide policy regarding the subject matter and scope of claims granted or allowable in biopharmaceutical, pharmaceutical or biotechnology patents. The laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary information to the same extent as the laws of the United States, and many companies have encountered significant problems and costs in protecting their proprietary information in these foreign countries. Outside the United States, patent protection must be sought in individual jurisdictions, further adding to the cost and uncertainty of obtaining adequate patent protection outside of the United States. Accordingly, we cannot predict whether additional patents protecting our technology will issue in the United States or in foreign jurisdictions, or whether any patents that do issue will have claims of adequate scope to provide competitive advantage. Moreover, we cannot predict whether third parties will be able to successfully obtain claims or the breadth of such claims. The allowance of broader claims may increase the incidence and cost of patent interference proceedings, opposition proceedings, post-grant review, inter partes review, and/or reexamination proceedings, the risk of infringement litigation, and the vulnerability of the claims to challenge. On the other hand, the allowance of narrower claims does not eliminate the potential for adversarial proceedings and may fail to provide a competitive advantage. Our issued patents may not contain claims sufficiently broad to protect us against third parties with similar technologies or products or provide us with any competitive advantage.

We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents, which could be expensive, time consuming and unsuccessful.

Third parties may infringe or misappropriate our intellectual property, including our existing patents, patents that may issue to us in the future, or the patentsIf any of our licensorsowned or licensees to which we have a license. As a result, we may be required to file infringement claims to stop third-party infringement or unauthorized use. Further,in-licensed patent applications do not issue as patents in any jurisdiction, we may not be able to prevent, alonecompete effectively.

Changes in either the patent laws or withtheir interpretation in the United States and other countries may diminish our licensors or licensees, misappropriationability to protect our inventions, obtain, maintain, and enforce our intellectual property rights and, more generally, could affect the value of our intellectual property or narrow the scope of our owned and licensed patents. With respect to our patent portfolio, as of the date of this filing, we own, co-own or have exclusive rights to approximately 30 issued United States patents and approximately 35 issued foreign patents. We also own, co-own or have exclusive rights to approximately 35 pending United States patent applications and approximately 290 pending foreign patent applications. Our patent positions, and those of other biopharmaceutical, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, are generally uncertain and involve complex legal, scientific, and factual questions. The standards which the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) uses to grant patents, and the standards which courts use to interpret patents, are not always applied predictably or uniformly and can change, particularly as new technologies develop. Consequently, the level of protection, if any, that will be provided by our patents if we attempt to enforce them and they are challenged, is uncertain. In addition, the type and extent of patent claims that will be issued to us in countries where the lawsfuture is uncertain. Any patents that are issued may not protect those rightscontain claims that permit us to stop competitors from using similar technology. With respect to both in- licensed and owned intellectual property, we cannot predict whether the patent applications we and our licensors are currently pursuing will issue as fullypatents in any particular jurisdiction or whether the claims of any issued patents will provide sufficient protection from competitors or other third parties.

The patent prosecution process is expensive, time-consuming, and complex, and we may not be able to file, prosecute, maintain, enforce, or license all necessary or desirable patents and patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output in time to obtain patent protection. Although we enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to confidential or patentable aspects of our research and development output, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, contract research organizations, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties, any of these parties may breach such agreements and disclose such output before a patent application is filed, thereby jeopardizing our ability to seek patent protection. In addition, our ability to obtain and maintain valid and enforceable patents depends on whether the differences between our inventions and the prior art allow our inventions to be patentable over the prior art. Furthermore, publications of discoveries in the United States.

If we or one of our licensors or licensees were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce ascientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent covering our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent covering our product candidates is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigationapplications in the United States defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or unenforceabilityin some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to make the inventions claimed in any of our owned or licensed patents or pending patent applications, or that we or our licensors were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions.

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

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions, and has been the subject of much litigation in recent years. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability, and commercial value of our patent rights are commonplace,highly uncertain. Our approximately 35 pending United States patent applications and there are numerous grounds uponapproximately 290 pending foreign patent applications may not result in patents being issued which a third party can assert invalidityprotect our product candidates or unenforceabilitypatents which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and product candidates.

No consistent policy regarding the scope of a patent.

In addition, within andclaims allowable in patents in the biotechnology field has emerged in the United States. The patent situation outside of the United States there has been a substantial amount of litigation and administrative proceedings, including interference and reexamination proceedings beforeis even more uncertain. Changes in either the USPTOpatent laws or oppositionstheir interpretation in the United States and other comparable proceedingscountries may diminish our ability to protect our inventions and enforce our intellectual property rights, and more generally could affect the value of our intellectual property. In particular, our ability to stop third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing products that infringe our intellectual property will depend in various foreign jurisdictions, regardingpart on our success in obtaining and enforcing patent claims that cover our technology, inventions and improvements. With respect to both licensed and company-owned intellectual property, we cannot be sure that patents will be granted with respect to any of our pending patent applications or with respect to any patent applications filed by us in the future, nor can we be sure that any of our existing patents or any patents that may be granted to us in the future will be commercially useful in protecting our products and the methods used to manufacture those products. Moreover, even our issued patents do not guarantee us the right to practice our technology in relation to the commercialization of our products. The area of patent and other intellectual property rights in biotechnology is an evolving one with many risks and uncertainties, and third parties may have blocking patents that could be used to prevent us from commercializing our patented product candidates and practicing our proprietary technology. Our issued patent and those that may issue in the biopharmaceutical industry. Recently, the AIA introduced new procedures, including inter partes review and post grant review. These proceduresfuture may be usedchallenged, invalidated, or circumvented, which could limit our ability to stop competitors from marketing related products or limit the length of the term of patent protection that we may have for our product candidates. In addition, the rights granted under any issued patents may not provide us with protection or competitive advantages against competitors with similar technology. Furthermore, our competitors may independently develop similar technologies. For these reasons, we may have competition for our product candidates. Moreover, because of the extensive time required for development, testing and regulatory review of a potential product, it is possible that, before any particular product candidate can be commercialized, any related patent may expire or remain in force for only a short period following commercialization, thereby reducing any advantage of the patent.

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

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity, or enforceability, and patents that patents perceived by our competitors as blocking entry into the market for their products, and the outcome of such challenges.

Even after they have been issued, our patents and any patents which we own or license may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. We or our licensors may be subject to a third party preissuance submission of prior art to the USPTO or to foreign patent authorities or become involved in opposition, derivation, revocation, reexamination, post-grant and inter partes review, or interference proceedings or other similar proceedings challenging our owned or licensed patent rights. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate or render unenforceable, our owned or in-licensed patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our product candidates, and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights. Moreover, we, or one of our licensors, may have to participate in interference proceedings declared by the USPTO to determine priority of invention or in post-grant challenge proceedings, such as oppositions in a foreign patent office, that challenge our or our licensor’s priority of invention or other features of patentability with respect to our owned or in-licensed patents and patent applications. Such challenges may result in loss of patent rights, loss of exclusivity, or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated, or circumvented. Ifheld unenforceable, which could limit our patents are invalidatedability to stop others from using or otherwise limitedcommercializing similar or will expire prior toidentical technology and products, or limit the commercializationduration of the patent protection of our product candidates. Such proceedings also may result in substantial cost and require significant time from our scientists and management, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us.

In addition, given the amount of time required for the development, testing, and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such product candidates might expire before or shortly after such product candidates are commercialized. As a

51

result, our intellectual property may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

We may in the future co-own patent rights relating to future product candidates with third parties. Some of our in-licensed patent rights are, and may in the future be, co-owned with third parties. In addition, our licensors may co-own the patent rights we in-license with other companiesthird parties with whom we do not have a direct relationship. Our exclusive rights to certain of these patent rights are dependent, in part, on inter-institutional or other operating agreements between the joint owners of such patent rights, who are not parties to our license agreements. If our licensors do not have exclusive control of the grant of licenses under any such third-party co-owners’ interest in such patent rights or we are otherwise unable to secure such exclusive rights, such co-owners may be better able to developlicense their rights to other third parties, including our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and technology. In addition, we may need the cooperation of any such co- owners of our patent rights in order to enforce such patent rights against third parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

If we fail to comply with our obligations under our intellectual property licenses with third parties, we could lose license rights that competeare important to our business.

We are currently party to various intellectual property license agreements. These license agreements impose, and we expect that future license agreements may impose, various diligence, milestone payment, royalty, insurance and other obligations on us. These licenses typically include an obligation to pay an upfront payment, yearly maintenance payments and royalties on sales. If we fail to comply with ours,our obligations under the licenses, the licensors may have the right to terminate their respective license agreements, in which event we might not be able to market any product that is covered by the agreements. Termination of the license agreements or reduction or elimination of our licensed rights may result in our having to negotiate new or reinstated licenses with less favorable terms, which could adversely affect our competitive business position business prospects and financial condition.harm our business.

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

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on our product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive. The following are non-exclusive examplesrequirements for patentability may differ in certain countries, particularly developing countries. For example, China has a heightened requirement for patentability, and specifically requires a detailed description of litigationmedical uses of a claimed drug. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, other adversarial proceedings or disputes thatfurther, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we could become a party to involvinghave patent protection, but enforcement on infringing activities is inadequate. 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.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents licensedand other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to us:

26

These lawsuits and proceedings would be costly and could affect our results of operations and divert the attention of our managerial and scientific personnel. There is a risk that a court or administrative body could decide that our patents are invalid or not infringed by a third party’s activities, or that the scope of certain issued claims must be further limited. An adverse outcome in a litigation or proceeding involving our own patents could limit our ability to assert our patents against these or other competitors, affect our ability to receive royalties or other licensing consideration from our licensees, and may curtail or preclude our ability to exclude third parties from making, using and selling similar or competitive products. An adverse outcome may also put our pending patent applications at risk of not issuing, and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or issuingother remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. In addition, certain countries in Europe and certain developing countries, including India and China, have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In those countries, we may have limited remedies if our patents are infringed or if we are compelled to grant a license to our patents to a third party, which could materially diminish the value of those patents. This could limit our potential revenue opportunities. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we own or license. Finally, our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property rights may be adversely affected by unforeseen changes in foreign intellectual property laws.

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

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on patents and/or applications will be due to coverthe USPTO and various foreign patent offices at various points over the lifetime of our patents and/or applications. We have systems in place to remind us to pay these fees, and we rely on our outside counsel or service providers to pay these fees when due. Additionally, the USPTO and various foreign patent offices require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. We employ reputable law firms and other professionals to

52

help us comply, and in many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with rules applicable to the particular jurisdiction. However, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. If such an event were to occur, it could have a material adverse effect on our business. In addition, we are responsible for the payment of patent fees for patent rights that we have licensed from other parties.

If any licensor of these patents does not itself elect to make these payments, and we fail to do so, we may be liable to the licensor for any costs and consequences of any resulting loss of patent rights.

Changes in U.S. patent law could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our product candidates. The outcome following

Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involves both technological and legal assertionscomplexity, and therefore, is costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. In addition, the United States has enacted and implemented wide-ranging patent reform legislation. Further, recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings have either narrowed the scope of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. Withpatent protection available in certain circumstances or weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the validity question,value of patents, once obtained.

For our U.S. patent applications containing a claim not entitled to priority before March 16, 2013, there is a greater level of uncertainty in the patent law. In September 2011, AIA was signed into law. The AIA includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law, including provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and also affect patent litigation. The USPTO has developed regulations and procedures to govern administration of the AIA, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the AIA. It is not clear what other, if any, impact the AIA will have on the operation of our business. Moreover, the AIA 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.

An important change introduced by the AIA is that, as of March 16, 2013, the United States transitioned to a “first-inventor-to- file” system for example,deciding which party should be granted a patent when two or more patent applications are filed by different parties claiming the same invention. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO after that date but 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 going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application. Furthermore, our ability to obtain and maintain valid and enforceable patents depends on whether the differences between our technology and the prior art allow our technology to be patentable over the prior art. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art,we were the first to either (i) file any patent application related to our product candidates or (ii) invent any of which wethe inventions claimed in our patents or patent applications.

Among some of the other changes introduced by the AIA are changes that limit where a patentee may file a patent infringement suit and providing opportunities for third parties to challenge any issued patent in the USPTO. This applies 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 United States federal court necessary to invalidate a patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. Additionally, it is also possibleclaim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a district court action. Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims that prior art of whichwould not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district court action.

If we are aware, but which we do not believe affectsunable to protect the validity or enforceabilityconfidentiality of a claim, may, nonetheless, ultimatelyour proprietary information, the value of our technology and products could be found by a court of law or an administrative paneladversely affected.

In addition to affect the validity or enforceability of a claim, for example, if a priority claim is found to be improper. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, we could lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection, we also rely on other proprietary rights, including protection of trade secrets, and other proprietary information. To maintain the confidentiality of trade secrets and proprietary information, we enter into confidentiality agreements with our relevant product candidates. Such a lossemployees, consultants, collaborators and others upon the commencement of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business.

Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connectiontheir relationships with intellectual property litigation or administrative proceedings, there is a riskus. These agreements require that some of ourall confidential information could be compromiseddeveloped by disclosure. In addition,the individual or made known to the individual by us during the course of litigationthe individual’s relationship with us be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties. Our agreements with employees and our personnel policies also provide that any inventions conceived by the individual in the course of rendering services to us shall be our exclusive property. However, we may not obtain these agreements in all circumstances, and individuals with whom we have these agreements may not comply with their terms. Thus, despite such agreement, such inventions may become assigned to third parties. In the event of unauthorized use or administrative proceedings, theredisclosure of our trade secrets or proprietary information, these agreements, even if obtained, may not provide meaningful protection, particularly for our trade secrets or other confidential information. To the extent that

53

our employees, consultants or contractors use technology or know-how owned by third parties in their work for us, disputes may arise between us and those third parties as to the rights in related inventions. To the extent that an individual who is not obligated to assign rights in intellectual property to us is rightfully an inventor of intellectual property, we may need to obtain an assignment or a license to that intellectual property from that individual, or a third party or from that individual’s assignee. Such assignment or license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

Adequate remedies may not exist in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure of our proprietary information. The disclosure of our trade secrets would impair our competitive position and may materially harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. Costly and time-consuming litigation could be public announcementsnecessary to enforce and determine the scope of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments or public accessour proprietary rights, and failure to related documents. If investors perceive these results to be negative, the market price for our common stock could be significantly harmed. Any of these occurrencesmaintain trade secret protection could adversely affect our competitive business position, business prospects, and financial condition.

Intellectual property rights do not necessarily address all potential threats to our competitive advantage. The degree of future protection for our proprietary rights is uncertain because legal means afford only limited protection and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep our competitive advantage. For example:

Our commercial success depends significantly on our ability to operate without infringing the patents and other proprietary rights of third parties.

Our success will depend in part on our ability to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. Other entities may have or obtain patents or proprietary rights that could limit our ability to make, use, sell, offer for sale or import our future approved products or impair our competitive position. In particular, the patent landscapelandscapes around the discovery, development, manufacture and commercial use of our pre-clinical CPM antibody programs and therapeutic antibodies isproduct candidates are crowded.

27

Third parties may have or obtain valid and enforceable patents or proprietary rights that could block us from developing product candidates using our technology. Our failure to obtain a license to any technology that we require may materially harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. Moreover, our failure to maintain a license to any technology that we require may also materially harm our business, financial condition, and results of operations. Furthermore, we would be exposed to a threat of litigation.

In the biopharmaceutical industry, significant litigation and other proceedings regarding patents, patent applications, trademarks and other intellectual property rights have become commonplace. The types of situations in which we may become a party to such litigation or proceedings include:

54