UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022

OR

Commission File Number: 001-39856

CULLINAN ONCOLOGY, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(617) 410-4650

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting stock held by non-affiliates of the Registrant as of June 30, 2022 was $375.6 million based on the closing price of the Registrant's shares of common stock on the Nasdaq Global Select Market on such date.

The number of shares of the Registrant’s common stock outstanding as of March 1, 2023 was 39,327,298.

The number of shares of the Registrant’s preferred stock outstanding as of March 1, 2023 was 647,500, which are excluded from the above aggregate market value. Each share of the preferred stock will be convertible into 10 shares of common stock at the option of the holder at any time, subject to certain limitations, including that the holder will be prohibited from converting preferred stock into common stock if, as a result of such conversion, the holder, together with its affiliates, would beneficially own a number of shares of common stock more than 9.99% of the total common stock then issued and outstanding immediately following the conversion of such shares of preferred stock. Shares of preferred stock will generally have no voting rights, except as required by law and except that the consent of a majority of the holders of the outstanding preferred stock will be required to amend the terms of the preferred stock. In the event of the Company’s liquidation, dissolution or winding up, holders of Preferred Stock will participate pari passu with any distribution of proceeds to holders of Common Stock. The Preferred Stock ranks (i) senior to any class or series of capital stock of the Company hereafter created specifically ranking by its terms junior to the Preferred Stock; (ii) on parity with the Common Stock and any class or series of capital stock of the Company created specifically ranking by its terms on parity with the Preferred Stock; and (iii) junior to any class or series of capital stock of the Company created specifically ranking by its terms senior to any Preferred Stock, in each case, as to distributions of assets upon liquidation, dissolution or winding up of the Company, whether voluntarily or involuntarily.

Table of Contents

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements which are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) that involve risks, uncertainties, and other factors that may cause actual results, levels of activity, performance or achievements to be materially different from the information expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. All statements, other than statements of historical facts, contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including statements regarding our strategy, future operations, future financial position, future revenue, projected costs, prospects, plans and objectives of management and expected market growth are forward-looking statements. The words “anticipate,” “believe,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “should,” “target,” “would” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words.

Any forward-looking statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K reflect our current views with respect to future events or to our future financial performance and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. Factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from current expectations include, among other things, those listed in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and other filings with the Securities Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), including the following:

We may not actually achieve the plans, intentions or expectations disclosed in our forward-looking statements, and investors should not place undue reliance on our forward-looking statements. Actual results or events could differ materially from the plans, intentions and expectations disclosed in the forward-looking statements we make. Our forward-looking statements do not reflect the potential impact of any future acquisitions, mergers, dispositions, joint ventures or investments we may make or collaborations or strategic partnerships we may enter into.

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

This Annual Report on Form 10-K also contains estimates, projections and other information concerning our industry, our business and the markets for our product candidates. Information that is based on estimates, forecasts, projections, market research or similar methodologies is inherently subject to uncertainties and actual events or circumstances may differ materially from events and circumstances that are assumed in this information. Unless otherwise expressly stated, we obtained this industry, business, market and other data from our own internal estimates and research as well as from reports, research surveys, studies, and similar data prepared by market research firms and other third parties, industry, medical and general publications, government data and similar sources. While we are not aware of any misstatements regarding any third-party information presented in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, their estimates, in particular, as they relate to projections, involve numerous assumptions, are subject to risks and uncertainties and are subject to change based on various factors, including those discussed under the section titled “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Summary of the Material and Other Risks Associated with Our Business

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

PART I

Item 1. Business.

Overview

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on modality-agnostic targeted oncology. Our strategy is to identify high-impact cancer targets and then select what we believe is the optimal therapeutic modality for those targets. We source innovation both internally and externally, focusing on product candidates with novel technology platforms or differentiated mechanisms. Before we advance a product candidate into clinical development, we evaluate its potential for anti-tumor activity as a single agent as well as its ability to generate an immune system response or to inhibit oncogenic processes. Using this strategy, we have built a broad and deep pipeline of targeted oncology programs that includes six distinct product candidates, of which five are clinical-stage, as well as multiple research and discovery programs.

Zipalertinib (CLN-081/TAS6417) which we are co-developing with an affiliate of Taiho Pharmaceutical, Co. Ltd ("Taiho"), is an orally bioavailable small-molecule, irreversible epidermal growth factor receptor ("EGFR") inhibitor that is designed to selectively target cells expressing EGFR exon 20 insertion ("EGFRex20ins") mutations with relative sparing of cells expressing wild-type EGFR. The United States Food and Drug Administration (the "FDA") has granted Breakthrough Therapy designation to zipalertinib. In the fourth quarter of 2022, in collaboration with our partners at Taiho, we initiated a pivotal Phase 2b study in patients with EGFR exon 20 non-small-cell lung cancer ("NSCLC") who progressed after prior systemic therapy. In June 2022, Taiho acquired our equity interest in our partially-owned subsidiary, Cullinan Pearl Corp. (“Cullinan Pearl”), which provided Taiho with worldwide rights to zipalertinib outside of Japan and Greater China, for an upfront payment of $275.0 million. As part of the sale, we are also eligible to receive up to an additional $130.0 million tied to EGFR exon 20 NSCLC regulatory milestones. Concurrently with the closing of the sale of our equity interest in Cullinan Pearl, we entered into a co-development and co-commercialization agreement for zipalertinib with an affiliate of Taiho, pursuant to which we will collaborate to develop zipalertinib and will retain the option to co-commercialize zipalertinib in the United States ("U.S."). Development costs for, and any future pre-tax profits from potential U.S. sales of, zipalertinib shall be shared equally between us and Taiho.

In addition to zipalertinib, our portfolio includes four other clinical-stage product candidates and one product candidate that is pending FDA clearance for its investigational new drug application ("IND"):

In addition to the product candidates described above, we are actively developing several preclinical oncology programs, all in the discovery stage, including our collaboration with Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai for the development of novel hematopoietic progenitor kinase 1 ("HPK1") degraders.

Our mission is to create new standards of care for patients with cancer. We seek to achieve our mission through our differentiated approach to drug development, which is guided by the following core elements:

1

Our Pipeline

Our pipeline includes oncology product candidates and programs that are diversified by target, mechanism, technology platform, and modality. We rigorously assess each of our programs to justify continued investment and determine proper capital allocation. When certain programs do not meet our de-risking criteria for advancement, we terminate those programs and preserve our capital and resources to invest in programs with greater potential. As a result, our pipeline will continue to be dynamic. We believe that each program candidate has differentiating design features or mechanisms of action, as well as first- and/or best-in-class potential. Our current pipeline is summarized in the diagram below:

Our Business Strategy and Objectives

Our strategic focus is on what we call “modality-agnostic targeted oncology”: We first identify high-impact cancer targets and then select what we believe is the optimal therapeutic modality for those targets. As a result, we are not dependent upon a singular technological platform or product. We define “high-impact” biological targets as those that play key roles as either oncogenic drivers or immune system activators. From there, we advance only molecules that we believe have first- and/or best-in-class potential and that can generate a robust anti-tumor response as a single agent in vivo. Through this disciplined approach, we believe we will bring forward differentiated molecules with the potential to create new standards of care for patients with cancer. Key objectives we aim to achieve with our strategy are as follows:

2

Our Structure

We are developing product candidates through Cullinan Oncology, Inc. (“Cullinan”) and through established development subsidiaries that we have created. Cullinan holds U.S. co-development and co-commercialization rights to zipalertinib, as well as U.S. rights to CLN-418, and worldwide rights to CLN-978. Previously, we established development subsidiaries when we licensed or acquired exclusive worldwide rights to intellectual property for several of our drug candidates, including Cullinan Florentine Corp. (“Cullinan Florentine”) for CLN-049, Cullinan MICA Corp. (“Cullinan MICA”) for CLN-619, and Cullinan Amber Corp. (“Cullinan Amber”) for CLN-617. Cullinan currently owns 96% of Cullinan Florentine, 95% of Cullinan Mica, and 94% of Cullinan Amber. The structure of our financing arrangements with each subsidiary enables us to increase our economic ownership when we provide additional capital.

We historically created development subsidiaries as a private company in order to grow and advance our portfolio efficiently. As a publicly held company, we do not intend to create new development subsidiaries in the future. Further information about our subsidiaries, including ownership and governance, is included in the “Management’s Discussion and Analysis” section of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

3

Our Programs

Zipalertinib

Overview

Zipalertinib is an orally bioavailable small-molecule designed as a next generation, irreversible EGFR inhibitor being developed in collaboration with an affiliate of Taiho for the treatment of a genetically defined subset of patients with NSCLC. In January 2022, the FDA granted Breakthrough Therapy designation to zipalertinib and in November 2022, in collaboration with our partners at Taiho, we initiated a pivotal Phase 2b trial evaluating zipalertinib in adult NSCLC patients with EGFRex20ins mutations who progressed after prior systemic therapy. We have a co-development and co-commercialization agreement for zipalertinib with an affiliate of Taiho, pursuant to which we will collaborate to develop zipalertinib and will retain the option to co-commercialize zipalertinib in the U.S. Development costs for zipalertinib shall be shared equally between us and Taiho with each party receiving 50% of any future pre-tax profits from potential U.S. sales of zipalertinib.

In June 2022, we provided a clinical update at the American Society for Clinical Oncology meeting that included safety and efficacy data from 73 evaluable NSCLC patients with EGFRex20ins mutations enrolled in a Phase 1/2a trial across five dose levels, ranging from 30 to 150 milligrams ("mg") twice daily. At the 100 mg twice-daily dose, we observed the following efficacy and safety highlights, which we believe reflect zipalertinib’s differentiated clinical profile:

Background on NSCLC and EGFR mutations

Lung cancer is by far the leading cause of cancer deaths among both men and women, comprising almost 25% of all cancer deaths. The American Cancer Society estimated that in 2023, there will be approximately 238,340 new cases of lung cancer and approximately 127,070 deaths from lung cancer in the U.S. The most common subtype of lung cancer is NSCLC, which represents approximately 80% to 85% of all lung cancers.

EGFR is a receptor tyrosine kinase ("RTK"), that normally functions to trigger cell division when growth factors bind to the receptor. Oncogenic mutations in the tyrosine kinase domain can induce growth factor-independent activation of EGFR, resulting in uncontrolled cell growth and proliferation. Ultimately, these aberrant signals can contribute to the development of NSCLC. EGFR mutations are present in approximately 15% to 25% of U.S. and Western European NSCLC patients and approximately 30% to 50% of Asian NSCLC patients. Given its important role and prevalence in cancer, mutant EGFR is a critical target in lung cancer therapy. Exon 19 deletion and exon 21 L858R substitution mutations, collectively referred to as classical EGFR mutations, are the most common and account for over 75% of EGFR mutations in NSCLC. Multiple EGFR inhibitors, including gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, and osimertinib, target these common mutations and have been approved as first-line therapies, thus validating mutant EGFR as a target for the treatment of NSCLC.

Exon 20 insertions, which account for 7% to 13% of all EGFR mutations in NSCLC patients, are the most prevalent after the classical EGFR mutations. We estimate an incidence of approximately 2,000 to 5,000 NSCLC patients in the U.S. and approximately 1,000 to 3,000 patients in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom (the "UK") with EGFRex20ins mutations. Preclinical studies have shown that exon 20 insertions, as well as classical EGFR mutations, have the characteristics of oncogenic driver mutations, which are responsible for both tumorigenesis and the progression of cancer. However, in contrast to classical EGFR mutations, exon 20 insertions do not sensitize the kinase domain to treatment with approved EGFR inhibitors.

Currently, there are two targeted therapies with accelerated approval for NSCLC patients with EGFRex20ins mutations whose disease has progressed on or after platinum-based chemotherapy: amivantamab-vmjw (Rybrevant) and mobocertinib (Exkivity). Despite these accelerated approvals, we believe significant unmet need remains for NSCLC patients with EGFRex20ins mutations. Specifically, we believe there is an opportunity for an oral therapy with strong selectivity for mutant versus wild-type EGFR, which could potentially lead to an improved safety and tolerability profile, especially with respect to treatment-related adverse events such as rash, diarrhea, and infusion site reactions, as well as cardiovascular events.

4

Zipalertinib

Zipalertinib is a small molecule that was designed as an irreversible EGFR inhibitor with a novel pyrrolopyrimidine scaffold, which is unique among the therapies in development that are targeting EGFRex20ins mutations. Zipalertinib is designed to fit into the adenosine triphosphate-binding site of EGFR where it covalently modifies C797, thereby forming a durable drug-protein linkage that irreversibly inhibits the mutant receptor. In preclinical studies, zipalertinib demonstrated high selectivity and inhibition of EGFR in cells expressing mutant EGFR proteins, with substantially less inhibition in cells expressing wild-type EGFR.

The selectivity index of zipalertinib versus competing EGFR inhibitors was evaluated in vitro as measured by the ratio of the half-maximal growth inhibition ("IC50") value of cells expressing wild-type EGFR versus cells expressing exon 20 insertion mutant EGFR. As shown below, zipalertinib demonstrated the highest selectivity index among a panel of EGFR targeted therapies, suggesting that zipalertinib may be capable of achieving clinically relevant inhibition of EGFRex20ins mutations with relative sparing of wild-type EGFR.

Zipalertinib Demonstrated Superior Selectivity Across Multiple EGFRex20ins Mutations

Clinical Development

Phase 1/2a Study

We initiated our ongoing Phase 1/2a trial of zipalertinib in the fourth quarter of 2019. This first-in-human, open-label, multi-center trial was designed to evaluate the safety and tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and preliminary efficacy of zipalertinib in adult NSCLC patients with EGFRex20ins mutation who progressed after prior systemic therapy. The trial included two major components: dose escalation and cohort expansion. Dose escalation began with a single patient accelerated titration design and transitioned to rolling six decision rules upon the first occurrence of a Grade 2 or greater TRAE, which occurred at the 100 mg twice-daily dose level. This trial had a flexible, adaptive design that included 30, 45, 65, 100, and 150 mg twice-daily dose cohorts and allowed for expansion of any given cohort, gated by acceptable safety and pre-specified efficacy criteria. Per original protocol, cohorts could be expanded to six, then 13, then 36 patients, gated by these criteria. We expanded cohorts at the 65 mg, 100 mg, and the 150 mg twice-daily dose levels, although we subsequently discontinued enrollment at the 150 mg level after 11 patients based on assessment of the overall clinical profile at this dose level. We enrolled a total of 39 patients at the 100 mg twice-daily dose level, which includes the original protocol maximum of 36 patients plus an additional three patients that were reassigned following our decision to discontinue enrollment at the 150 mg twice-daily dose level. We enrolled patients across sites in the U.S., the Netherlands, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.

The study enrolled a total of 73 patients who received at least one dose of zipalertinib. The patient population was heavily pre-treated, with a median of two prior systemic therapies and 66% of patients having received two or more prior therapies at study entry (i.e. third line of therapy or greater). Further, 36% of patients received prior treatment with an EGFR inhibitor, including 4% that received prior treatment with poziotinib or Exkivity, TKIs that target exon 20 insertion mutations. Over half (55%) of the patients received prior treatment with immunotherapy.

5

Phase 1/2a Safety and Pharmacokinetic Data

The following table provides a summary of treatment-related safety and tolerability events, including rash and diarrhea, which are toxicities related to inhibition of wild-type EGFR, as well as laboratory abnormalities including anemia and transaminase elevations across all twice-daily dose levels for comparison, as well as the overall safety population in our Phase 1/2a trial. We believe that this safety and tolerability profile compares favorably to other EGFR exon 20 inhibitors, in particular with respect to the incidence and severity of diarrhea.

Differentiated Safety and Tolerability Profile of Zipalertinib at 100mg Twice-Daily

1Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0

In the 39 safety-evaluable patients in the Phase 1/2a trial treated at the 100 mg twice daily dose level, none experienced Grade 3 or greater treatment-related rash or diarrhea. At this dose level, 82% and 36% of patients experienced treatment-related rash and diarrhea, respectively, of either Grade 1 or 2 severity; however, the ratio of patients who experience Grade 1 versus Grade 2 events is approximately 3:1 for both rash and diarrhea. Both events were manageable with conventional supportive care, and implementation of systematic gastrointestinal prophylaxis was not required for diarrhea management. As has been seen with other EGFR TKIs, a case of Grade 3 treatment-related pneumonitis was observed at this dose level, although the patient had recent treatment with checkpoint inhibitor therapy and the concurrent presence of a significant hydropneumothorax, not related to treatment, in the contralateral lung.

Key observations in 11 safety-evaluable patients at the 150 mg twice-daily dose level included treatment-related Grade 3 diarrhea in two patients, Grade 3 rash in one patient, and two patients with Grade 3 and Grade 4 transaminitis. In addition, one patient who was off treatment with zipalertinib for more than three weeks because of progressive disease was reported as having Grade 3 treatment-related pneumonitis; the patient had a concurrent Pneumocystis jirovecii infection. In addition, an increase in rates of dose reduction and dose discontinuation were observed among patients treated at the 150 mg twice-daily compared to the 100 mg twice-daily dose level. These observations informed our decision to discontinue further enrollment of patients at 150 mg twice-daily, after 11 patients.

Preliminary pharmacokinetic data demonstrated a near dose-dependent trend in exposure, as measured by unbound area under the curve ("AUC") and Cmax values. Furthermore, the target AUC required to achieve tumor regression in preclinical studies was reached starting at the initial dose of 30 mg twice daily. Notable features of the zipalertinib pharmacokinetic profile include sustained pharmacokinetic exposure over the concentration required for 50% growth inhibition ("GI50") for EGFRex20ins mutations for eight hours post dose, limited interpatient heterogeneity, and limited exposure above the GI50 for wild-type EGFR at doses at or below 100 mg twice daily. Consistent with the clinical safety profile at 100 mg twice-daily dose compared with the 150 mg twice-daily dose, at the 150 mg twice-daily dose we observed zipalertinib concentrations above wild-type EGFR GI50 ratios for approximately four hours.

6

Phase 1/2a Efficacy Data

The following table summarizes best response characteristics for response-evaluable patients treated at 65mg or below (N=23), 100 mg (N=39), and 150 mg (N=11) twice-daily dose levels as well as the overall population across dose levels in aggregate (N=73) as of a May 9, 2022 data cutoff. Among patients treated at 100 mg twice daily, 16 patients achieved a confirmed partial response, indicating a 41% confirmed overall response rate ("ORR"). This confirmed ORR was higher than the 36% confirmed ORR among 11 patients at the 150 mg twice-daily dose cohort. At the 100 mg twice-daily dose cohort, median PFS was 12 months compared to a PFS of only 8 months at the 150mg twice-daily dose. As discussed above, Grade 3 or higher rash and diarrhea as well as dose reductions and dose discontinuations all favored the 100mg twice-daily dose cohort.

Zipalertinib: Superior Safety and Efficacy Observed at 100mg Twice-Daily Dose

Below are additional efficacy analyses for the 73 patients including a swimmer’s chart (A) and a waterfall chart with percentage best change from baseline (B). We have also included a Kaplan-Meier curve showing median PFS (C). Patients in the trial have their initial tumor imaging performed after approximately six weeks of treatment, and then every nine weeks thereafter. Based on these analyses, we believe that zipalertinib has shown substantial antitumor activity with broad EGFR exon 20 variant coverage; a rapid onset of action; and encouraging response quality as measured by PFS.

7

(A) Preliminary Efficacy Results from Ongoing Phase 1/2a Trial of Zipalertinib

(B) Best Response % Change from Baseline (target lesion)

8

(C) Estimated Median Progression-Free Survival

Phase 1/2a Food Effect Study

In addition to the Phase 1/2a trial described above, in 2022 we completed a 16 patient preliminary food effect module evaluating the single-dose pharmacokinetics (PK) of a single dose of 150 mg zipalertinib in an all-comer solid tumor population. Employing a randomized cross-over design, each patient received 150 mg zipalertinib in both the fed and fasted state in order to assess the effect of taking the drug with food on exposure. The results showed that co-administering the drug with food did not meaningfully change zipalertinib exposure. Consistent with decision rules reviewed by the FDA, we will explore the safety and efficacy of the 150 mg twice-daily dose in a fed state as part of the pivotal Phase 2b portion of the study, as described below.

Pivotal Phase 2b Study

In November 2022, in collaboration with our partners at Taiho, we initiated an ongoing, pivotal Phase 2b study of zipalertinib in adult NSCLC patients with EGFRex20ins mutations who progressed after prior systemic therapy, a patient population consistent with the Phase 1/2a trial. The pivotal portion of the Phase 2b study consists of two parallel, non-randomized dosing cohorts: one cohort of patients receiving a 100 mg twice-daily dose of zipalertinib in the fasted state and a second cohort of patients receiving a 150 mg twice-daily dose of zipalertinib in the fed state. Rigorous stopping rules are being applied to the 150 mg cohort in which this dose must show superior efficacy and safety relative to the Phase 1/2a results for the 100 mg fasted dose. If the 150 mg cohort fails to show superiority on both safety and efficacy criteria, we will stop enrollment and continue enrolling patients only at the 100 mg twice-daily fasted dose. The trial protocol also includes a separate cohort intended to evaluate zipalertinib at the 100 mg fasted dose level in adult NSCLC patients with EGFRex20ins mutations who have received prior treatment with an approved exon 20 therapy.

9

CLN-049

Overview

CLN-049, is a humanized bispecific antibody that we are developing for the treatment of AML and MDS. We are currently evaluating CLN-049 in a multi-ascending dose trial in adult patients with relapsed or refractory AML (“r/r AML") and MDS. CLN-049 is designed to simultaneously bind to FLT3 on the extracellular domain of target leukemic cells and to CD3 on T cells, triggering the T cells to kill the target cancer cells. FLT3 is a proto-oncogene and a validated target, and several kinase inhibitors targeting mutant FLT3 are approved for the treatment of r/r AML, but their use is limited to approximately 25% of the AML population with FLT3 mutations. By targeting the extracellular domain of FLT3, CLN-049 has the potential to address up to approximately 80% of AML patients that express mutant or wild-type FLT3. Preclinically, we have observed that CLN-049 led to highly potent FLT3-dependent killing of leukemic cells in vitro at a wide range of FLT3 expression levels on AML cells regardless of FLT3 mutational status. In preclinical studies, treatment with CLN-049, even at low doses, led to survival benefit in an AML xenograft model and elimination of leukemic blasts in mouse models implanted with AML cell lines or primary patient leukemic cells.

Background on Acute Myeloid Leukemia and FLT3

The American Cancer Society estimates that, in 2023, there will be approximately 20,380 newly diagnosed patients with AML and approximately 11,310 deaths from AML in the U.S. AML is a complex hematologic malignancy characterized by uncontrolled proliferation of malignant immature myeloid blast cell populations. These blasts may completely infiltrate and replace the bone marrow, resulting in major disruption of normal hematopoiesis and pancytopenia, very high numbers of circulating blasts in the peripheral blood, and infiltration of visceral organs as well as the skin. In addition, patients with AML may be susceptible to bleeding complications due to thrombocytopenia and experience complications from treatment with cytotoxic chemotherapy. These patients may also be severely immuno-compromised secondary to their disease and experience prolonged periods of neutropenia and lymphopenia. As a result, these patients are often susceptible to life-threatening infections that also contribute to severe morbidity and mortality.

Despite advancements in the treatment of AML, there continues to be a high unmet need in these patients. Eligible newly diagnosed patients are typically treated with intensive induction chemotherapy (“IC”), which may include continuous infusion of cytarabine with an anthracycline, in an attempt to achieve a complete remission. The majority of patients that experience complete remission undergo hematopoietic stem cell transplantation ("HSCT"). This regimen is the only currently available curative therapy for AML. However, 85% of patients over 60 years old are ineligible for IC and HSCT. Given an average age of diagnosis of 68 years old, curative therapy is not available for most AML patients. Despite aggressive first-line combination chemotherapy, the recent approvals of multiple targeted small molecules for molecularly defined AML patient subsets, and the use of HSCT in patients with a suitable matched donor, the prognosis of patients with AML remains extremely poor. Although 60% to 85% of younger adult patients achieve complete remissions, patients older than 60 years of age have inferior complete response rates of 40% to 60%. In addition, approximately 40% of all patients relapse following HSCT and approximately 10% of relapsed patients survive at least five years. Therefore, a significant unmet need remains for a broadly applicable, well-tolerated therapy that can produce high rates of durable responses.

FLT3 is a Class III RTK with a well-recognized and essential role in hematopoiesis. In healthy individuals, expression of FLT3 is restricted to a subpopulation of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells ("HSPCs"), inducing their proliferation and differentiation into monocytes, dendritic cells, B cells, and T cells. FLT3 has been identified as a proto-oncogene and plays a key role in promoting leukemic cell proliferation and survival. Several small-molecule kinase inhibitors targeting FLT3 mutations are in development or have been approved for the treatment of AML. However, these product candidates and approved therapies only address approximately 25% of AML patients who have intracellular FLT3 genetic mutations but do not address the larger subset of patients with extracellular expression of FLT3 regardless of mutational status on the surface of cancer cells.

Studies using flow cytometry have shown that FLT3 is expressed on AML blasts in approximately 80% of AML patients, regardless of mutational status. In one study, leukemic bulk cells from 318 newly diagnosed or relapsed AML patients were evaluated for cell surface FLT3 protein expression, and 78% were found positive for FLT3, as shown in the figure below. This broad expression of FLT3 in AML patients suggests that targeting FLT3 with a biologic agent, namely a T cell engaging bispecific antibody that recruits T cells to kill tumor cells expressing FLT3 on the cell surface, could address a larger AML patient population than the targeted small-molecule inhibitors targeting the mutated version of the intracellular signaling domain of FLT3 that are approved or in development. Compared to other tumor surface antigens identified in AML, such as CD33 and CD123, FLT3 expression is generally restricted to a subpopulation of bone marrow HSPCs and circulating dendritic cells. FLT3 plays a key role in driving leukemogenesis and malignant progression of AML, promoting leukemic cell proliferation and survival. We believe that the expression of FLT3 on the surface of leukemic blasts in most AML patients and its role as a known oncogenic driver make it an attractive therapeutic target for a T cell engager approach.

10

Approximately 80% of AML Patients Show Positive Cell Surface FLT3 Protein Expression

CLN-049

As shown below, CLN-049 is a humanized bispecific antibody construct comprised of two FLT3-binding domains, an Fc-silenced humanized immunoglobulin G1 (“IgG1") backbone, and CD3-binding single-chain variable fragment domains ("scFvs"), fused to the C-terminus of the antibody’s heavy chain. In multiple preclinical studies, CLN-049 has demonstrated the ability to redirect T cells to lyse FLT3-expressing AML cells in vitro and potent antitumor activity in vivo. By targeting extracellular FLT3, regardless of mutant or wild-type status, we believe CLN-049 has the potential to address up to approximately 80% of AML patients, a broader patient population than existing small-molecule FLT3 kinase inhibitors acting on the intracellular domain, which are limited to a subset of approximately 25% of AML patients with FLT3 mutations.

CLN-049 Mechanism Potentially Allows for Broad FLT3 Depended AML Blast Killing

11

Preclinical Data

Given the observed variability in FLT3 expression levels among patients, we characterized the killing potential of CLN-049 across multiple cell lines expressing differing levels of FLT3 on the cell surface. As shown in the figures below, CLN-049 was observed to mediate robust target-dependent cell killing in vitro across all AML cell lines tested. Importantly, we observed that the drug concentration at which 50% of target cells are killed (the "EC50 value"), was in the sub-nanomolar range and did not seem to be dependent on the number of FLT3 receptor molecules found on AML target cells. In particular, we observed potent target cell killing even when those cells expressed fewer than 100 copies of the FLT3 receptor per cell. We also observed potent redirected lysis of AML cell lines with wild-type or mutant FLT3 expression. Based on these results, we believe CLN-049 may effectively kill AML target cells with even low levels of FLT3 expression, regardless of wild-type or mutant status, which could potentially translate into deeper and more durable responses in the clinic and may allow us to treat a larger subset of AML patients.

CLN-049 Demonstrated Killing of Target Cells Expressing a Range of FLT3, in vitro

CLN-049 Demonstrated Killing of Target Cells Expressing Wild-Type and Mutant FLT3, in vitro

FLT3 is not widely expressed on normal immune cells, but rather is restricted to certain hematopoietic stem cell precursors in the bone marrow and dendritic cell subsets in the periphery. As shown in the figure below, a recent study found that the expression level of FLT3 transcript was significantly higher on AML cells compared to normal tissues.

12

FLT3 Transcript Level is Higher on AML Cells Than on Normal Human Solid Tissues

CLN-049 has two CD3-binding arms that can potentially crosslink CD3 on T cells, which may result in target cell-independent T cell activation and systemic cytokine-related toxicities. In preclinical studies, we examined whether CLN-049 can lead to spurious T cell activation in the absence of target cells. As shown below, incubation of purified human T cells with CLN-049 in the absence of target-expressing cells did not induce T cell activation markers CD25 and CD69 on either CD4+ or CD8+ T cells as opposed to positive control anti-CD3 antibodies OKT3 and UCHT1 (CLN-049 parental anti-CD3 antibody) that induced T cell activation.

No T Cell Activation by CLN-049 in the Absence of Target Cells

The potential efficacy of CLN-049 was evaluated in a humanized mouse model where a human AML cell line was implanted systemically. As shown in the figure below, CLN-049 controlled AML leukemic burden in mice engrafted with human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (“PBMC") and led to improved survival of the mice in a dose-dependent manner beginning at very low doses. We believe CLN-049 effected this result by redirecting the T cells in the human PBMC population to kill the target AML cells.

13

Increased Survival of Engrafted Mice Starting at Very Low Doses of CLN-049

The anti-leukemic activity of CLN-049 was also evaluated using patient-derived AML or acute lymphoblastic leukemia (“ALL") blasts and PBMCs in disseminated humanized mouse models. As shown in the figure below, treatment with CLN-049 resulted in a significant reduction in the overall leukemic burden in the bone marrow in both the primary AML model and the primary ALL model. In contrast, a control T cell engaging bispecific antibody having the same format as CLN-049 but containing a non-specific target-binding domain did not impact the leukemic burden as compared to untreated control.

CLN-049 Demonstrated Potent Elimination of Patient-Derived AML Blasts in Mice

Ongoing Clinical Development

In December 2021, we initiated a Phase 1 clinical trial evaluating CLN-049 in r/r AML patients. The study is designed to primarily evaluate the pharmacokinetics and safety of the administration of CLN-049. We completed the single ascending dose portion of the Phase 1 trial testing intravenous administration of CLN-049 and initiated a multi-ascending dose portion of the study utilizing subcutaneous dosing in December 2022. We expect to present initial clinical data in mid-2023.

CLN-619

Overview

CLN-619 is a MICA/B-targeted, humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody that we intend to initially develop for the treatment of solid tumors. CLN-619 was designed to promote an antitumor response through multiple mechanisms of action, including inhibition of MICA/B shedding, mediation of antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (“ADCC”), antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis (“ADCP”), and enhancement of NKG2D receptor binding to MICA/B. The MICA/B receptor, NKG2D, is expressed on both innate and adaptive immune cell populations. Although several companies have disclosed preclinical MICA/B targeting programs, we are unaware of any clinical stage, antibody-based programs engaging this target, implying CLN-619 has first-in-class potential. In multiple in vivo preclinical tumor models, CLN-619 administration was associated with antitumor activity and reduced levels of serum MICA/B.

We believe CLN-619 has the potential to become a novel backbone agent for immuno-oncology therapy given the broad expression of MICA/B across tumor types and the biological rationale for combining CLN-619 with other agents. We are currently evaluating CLN-619 in an ongoing clinical trial for patients with advanced solid tumors. The trial design includes parallel evaluation of CLN-619 as a monotherapy and in combination with checkpoint-inhibitor therapy.

14

Background on NKG2D and MICA/B

NKG2D is a key activating receptor on NK cells responsible for cytolysis upon binding to ligands expressed on target cells. NKG2D is also expressed on other types of immune cells, including CD8+ ß T cells, natural killer T cells, and  T cells, and can prime such cells for activation and enhance their antitumor activity as a co-activating receptor. Healthy cells do not normally express ligands of NKG2D, but will do so in response to cellular stress, such as oxygen or nutrient deprivation, radiation, viral infection, or oncogenic transformation.

MICA/B proteins are broadly recognized by NK cells,  T cells, and CD8+ ß T cells via the NKG2D receptor. The engagement between the NKG2D receptor and MICA/B proteins triggers the effector cytolytic responses of NK cells and  T cells against tumor cells expressing MICA/B. In the case of CD8+ ß T cells, effector responses mediated by the T cell receptor are enhanced by NKG2D-MICA/B interactions. NKG2D-mediated stimulation also results in the induction of cytokines, which further promotes the recruitment and the proliferation of immune cells and bolsters the immune response.

To evade potential cytotoxic destruction by NK cells and T cells, tumor cells expressing MICA/B have adopted shedding of MICA/B from their cell surface as a key evasion mechanism. The MICA/B alpha-3 domain contains a stretch of amino acids that allows for protease cleavage of an extracellular portion of MICA/B and subsequent release from the cell surface, thereby reducing the ability of MICA/B to interact with NKG2D and resulting in decreased NKG2D-mediated killing of tumor cells. This mechanism also concomitantly increases the amount of circulating serum MICA/B ("sMICA/B"). The mechanisms underlying this biology are illustrated below. Below, the top pathway shows the normal mechanism by which tumor-associated ligands of NKG2D, such as MICA/B, can induce the killing of stressed cells. The bottom pathway shows how tumor cells, through the proteolytic cleavage of MICA/B, can escape immune surveillance and immune cell-mediated killing.

MICA/B Serves as a Warning Signal to the Immune System to Eliminate Potentially Dangerous Cells

An analysis of the expression of the NKG2D ligands in The Cancer Genome Atlas ("TCGA"), shows that MICA and MICB are the two ligands for NKG2D that are most frequently expressed across a wide range of tumor types. In the results of the TCGA analysis shown below, the red shading indicates high expression levels of NKG2D ligands and blue shading indicates low expression levels. We believe the positive expression profile of MICA/B in many tumor types provides attractive development opportunities across a wide range of indications.

15

MICA/B are the Most Highly Expressed NKG2D Ligands Across a Wide Array of Tumor Types

16

Data generated via analysis of TCGA database by Monoceros Biosystems.

CLN-619

CLN-619 is a MICA/B-targeted humanized IgG1 antibody with a competent Fc gamma 1 domain capable of mediating effector cell functions through binding to Fc gamma receptors on innate immune cells.

17

We believe CLN-619 may affect antitumor activity through a multi-pronged mechanism of action. First, we believe that CLN-619 may prevent the proteolytic cleavage of MICA and MICB on cancer cells by proteases commonly found in the tumor microenvironment (noted as “1” in the figure below). This mechanism would enable the accumulation of MICA/B on the surface of cancer cells. In preclinical studies, treatment with a parental CLN-619 clone resulted in increased cell surface expression and reduced serum levels of MICA/B in various tumor cell lines, while CLN-619 treatment in vivo led to reduced serum levels of MICA/B. Elevated expression of MICA/B on the surface of cancer cells is expected to enhance killing of cancer cells by NK cells via binding of their NKG2D receptor to MICA/B. MICA/B also interacts with NKG2D expressed on gd T cells and natural killer T cells, where NKG2D can play the role of a co-activating receptor, lowering the threshold for T cell-mediated cancer cell lysis. Second, CLN-619 has a human IgG1 backbone with a wild-type Fc gamma domain, which allows it to engage NK cells by binding to their FcgRIIIa, leading to ADCC (noted as “2” in the figure below). In preclinical studies, treatment with CLN-619 was shown to induce ADCC in vitro. Third, the wild-type Fc gamma domain of CLN-619 enables it to mediate ADCP of target tumor cells via macrophage engagement (noted as “3” in the figure below). Finally, our preliminary preclinical data suggests that CLN-619 may have the potential to enhance the binding of MICA/B to NKG2D receptors on NK cells or other immune cells to provide for improved cancer cell lysis (noted as “4” in the figure below). We believe that all of these mechanisms may be acting in a coordinated manner to engage NK cells and other immune cells, which could result in the cancer cell lysis observed in the preclinical studies described below.

Three CLN-619 Modes of Action

Preclinical Data

The key mechanistic underpinning of CLN-619’s antitumor activity is its ability to stabilize and prevent the shedding of MICA/B expressed on the surface of cancer cells. In preclinical studies, CLN-619 prevented shedding across a variety of cancer cell lines. In a representative hepatoma PLC/PRF/5 cell line, soluble MICA in the supernatant decreased following treatment with CLN-619 compared to a control antibody as shown in the figure below.

CLN-619 Inhibits MICA/B Shedding from Tumor Cells

18

CLN-619 also demonstrated the ability to enhance NK cell-mediated killing of MICA/B expressing cancer cells in vitro. In an ADCC reporter bioassay, the parental clone of CLN-619, which has antibody variable region sequences from a mouse hybridoma from which CLN-619 was derived, induced ADCC in a dose-dependent and MICA/B binding-dependent manner, as shown in the figure below, where killing activity was measured by the relative luminescence units ("RLU"). Such ADCC activity was abrogated when mutations in the Fc region were introduced into h3F9-DANA, which eliminated the binding to FcRIIIa on NK cells that is key to mediating ADCC. An isotype control also failed to trigger ADCC, demonstrating the requirement of MICA/B target engagement.

Parental Clone of CLN-619 Induces Cell Killing at Low Concentrations

The antitumor activity of CLN-619 was further evaluated in multiple mouse tumor models. In a representative lung cancer xenograft model, CLN-619 treatment as a single agent resulted in tumor growth inhibition at all doses tested, as shown in the figure below. We also observed suppression of MICA shedding at all doses tested as measured by soluble MICA serum levels.

19

CLN-619 Demonstrated Tumor Growth Inhibition
in a HCC1534 Lung Cancer Xenograft Model

Ongoing Clinical Development Plan

We are currently evaluating CLN-619 in a global Phase 1 clinical trial in patients with advanced solid tumors. The trial design includes initial evaluation of CLN-619 as a monotherapy and in combination with checkpoint inhibitor therapy in parallel dose-escalation cohorts. Upon establishing a recommended Phase 2 dose, the trial design includes several expansion cohorts to evaluate the preliminary efficacy of CLN-619 as both a monotherapy and in combination with checkpoint inhibitor therapy in patients with multiple solid tumor types. Planned monotherapy expansion cohorts include one in NSCLC, one in cervical cancer, and up to three additional cohorts to be determined based on observations from the dose escalation portion of the study. Planned combination expansion cohorts include NSCLC, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, and metastatic urothelial cancer. In addition, we will collect and analyze biomarkers, including sMICA, to inform the future development of CLN-619. Monotherapy dose escalation was initiated in December 2021 and the dose escalation with checkpoint inhibitor therapy was initiated as planned in 2022 after the 3 mg/kg monotherapy dose level cleared evaluation for dose-limiting toxicity. We expect to present initial clinical data in mid-2023.

20

Global Phase 1 Clinical Trial Design of CLN-619

CLN-418

Overview

CLN-418 is a fully human bispecific antibody targeting B7H4 and 4-1BB. In February 2023, we licensed from Harbour BioMed US Inc. ("Harbour") the exclusive rights to develop and commercialize CLN-418 in the U.S. in exchange for an upfront license fee of $25 million, plus up to $148 million in development and regulatory milestone payments, up to $415 million in sales-based milestone payments, and tiered royalties up to high teens on potential U.S. commercial sales. We are currently evaluating CLN-418 in a Phase 1 clinical study being conducted at U.S. and Australian sites in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Background on B7H4 and 4-1BB

We believe that B7H4 represents an attractive target for cancer immunotherapy. B7H4 is a member of the B7 family of immune regulatory proteins that includes important immune inhibitory ligands like PD-L1. B7H4 is expressed on the cell surface of tumor cells and has been shown to play an immunosuppressive role by inhibiting T cell proliferation and expansion. Expression of B7H4 in patient tumor samples has been correlated with advanced stages of disease, poor prognosis, and lower overall patient survival. While B7H4 is expressed at potentially clinically relevant levels across a range of solid tumors, including triple-negative breast cancer, NSCLC, and ovarian cancer, its expression is limited on normal tissues, indicating the potential for a wide therapeutic window. Finally, B7H4 often has minimal overlap with PD-L1 expression, which we believe creates the potential to address so-called “cold tumors” for which current PD-1 pathway immunotherapy approaches have demonstrated limited efficacy. The panel below includes B7H4 expression data from various studies conducted by Harbour.

21

B7H4 expression across solid tumor types B7H4 relative to PD-L1 expression across solid tumor cells

4-1BB is a key costimulatory molecule expressed on T cells and NK cells and has emerged as an attractive immunotherapy target. Mechanistically, 4-1BB activation induces T cell proliferation and survival, stimulates the secretion of inflammatory cytokines, and can promote anti-tumor immunity. Monoclonal agonistic antibodies targeting 4-1BB have been shown to have the ability to stimulate immune cells and generate antitumor responses in patients, but not without challenging toxicity issues often associated with non-specific 4-1BB immune cell activation, such as liver toxicity which is thought to be caused by Fc-mediated cross-linking enabled by Fc gamma receptor expressing cells present in the liver.

CLN-418

CLN-418 is a fully human bispecific antibody that contains human B7H4 and 4-1BB binding domains that were selected to have high binding affinity to B7H4 and designed to enable B7H4-crosslinking dependent 4-1BB activation. CLN-418 includes a silenced Fc domain designed to avoid cross-linking mediated by Fc gamma receptor-expressing cells. By targeting B7H4 on tumor cells, we believe CLN-418 represents a unique approach to enable the conditional activation of 4-1BB in the tumor microenvironment. Because of this mechanism and because CLN-418 lacks an active Fc domain, we believe CLN-418 has the potential to avoid toxicities associated with non-specific 4-1BB activation seen with Fc-functional monoclonal 4-1BB agonist antibodies. Also, CLN-418 may have the potential to synergize with other cancer therapies, particularly immunotherapy approaches, making it a strong candidate for combination therapy.

CLN-418 Structure

Preclinical Data

Preclinical studies of CLN-418 in multiple tumor cell lines, summarized below, have demonstrated 4-1BB T cell activation, as measured by induction of IL-2, contingent on the presence of B7H4, unlike monoclonal 4-1BB agonistic antibodies, such as urelumab and utomilumab.

22

CLN-418 only elicits T-cell activation in the presence of B7H4

Preclinically, CLN-418 showed the ability as a single agent to eradicate tumors in vivo and drive a memory response that prevented tumor growth upon re-challenge in the mice. An example of these results is shown below in a syngeneic mouse tumor model, whereby CLN-418 demonstrates a dose-dependent inhibition of tumor growth, and mice with an initial complete response following treatment with CLN-418 are subsequently immune upon tumor re-challenge.

CLN-418 clears tumors in mice and drives a memory response that prevents tumor growth upon re-challenge

Ongoing Clinical Development Plan

We are currently evaluating CLN-418 in a Phase 1 clinical study being conducted at U.S. and Australian sites in patients with advanced solid tumors. The part 1 dose escalation will test up to seven dose levels of CLN-418, from 0.03 to 20 mg per kilogram, dosed once every three weeks. Once a proposed Phase 2 dose is determined, the part 2 dose expansion will evaluate up to 30 patients in each of three tumor specific expansion cohorts: one in NSCLC, one in breast cancer, and a third to be determined by the efficacy signals observed in part 1 of the clinical study. In parallel, we are exploring opportunities to expand the trial to include one or more combination arms, which may include approved immunotherapy agents or other emerging therapeutic candidates in investigational studies. Initial data from part 1 of the ongoing trial is expected in 2024.

CLN-978

Overview

CLN-978 is a half-life extended, humanized, single-chain bispecific antibody designed to simultaneously engage CD19 on cancer cells and CD3 on T cells, triggering redirected T cells to lyse the target cancer cells. In addition, CLN-978 has an HSA binding domain designed to prolong its serum half-life. CLN-978 mediated CD19-dependent cell lysis in vitro of target cell lines with a range of CD19 target expression levels. In preclinical in vivo studies, treatment with CLN-978, at extremely low and infrequent doses, led to inhibition of tumor growth and tumor regression in a humanized lymphoma xenograft mouse model. We intend to initially evaluate CLN-978 as a novel treatment for B-NHL and are currently preparing to enter Phase 1 clinical studies in 2023.

We designed CLN-978 based on a bispecific T cell engager-like format using tandemly arranged scFvs for CD19 and CD3, similar to blinatumomab. In addition, we incorporated a third domain in the form of a single-domain antibody (VHH) for binding to HSA. We believe that binding of CLN-978 to albumin has the potential to extend its serum half-life. An illustration of the CLN-978 structure is shown in the following figure.

23

Design of CLN-978, a CD19/CD3-bispecific T Cell Engager with Extended Serum Half-life

We have engaged with Adimab, LLC ("Adimab") to generate antibody-derived binding domains specific for CD19, CD3, and HSA with optimized biophysical and biochemical properties, tailored binding affinities as well as other parameters that are key to developability, manufacturability and preclinical testing of drug candidates. In preclinical studies, CLN-978 has demonstrated potent antitumor activity both in terms of redirecting T cells to lyse low-CD19 expressing cells in vitro and significant tumor growth inhibition in vivo. We believe these preclinical results support further evaluation of CLN-978 for its potential to improve upon the clinical efficacy of existing therapies. In addition, we believe the ability to target cells with low CD19 expression would potentially enable us to address patients such as those patients that progress following CAR-T therapy.

Preclinical Data

CLN-978 incorporates a CD19 binding domain that was engineered to achieve picomolar binding affinity to CD19 as measured using plasmon resonance, which we believe may contribute to cytolytic potency against low CD19-expressing cell lines in in vitro studies. As shown in the figure below, CLN-978 targets a range of CD19 expression levels in the engineered A20 cell lines evaluated as measured by both the picomolar EC50 values of redirected cell lysis and the maximum percentage of lysis. We believe this observation supports our hypothesis that CLN-978 may have the potential to more adequately address the patient population with lower levels of CD19 expression and/or patients in which CD19 expression is downregulated as a resistance mechanism to CD19-targeted therapies. It was also shown that the robust lysis of target cells was dependent on CD19 expression, as the A20 parental cell line, which lacks CD19 expression, was not susceptible to lysis at any of the drug concentrations tested.

CLN-978 Redirects Cell Lysis of Low CD19-expressing Cell Lines in vitro Cytotoxicity Assays

CLN-978 has also demonstrated antitumor activity in vivo in a humanized model, where the mice were implanted with a human Raji-luciferase lymphoma cell line (Raji B.luc) and human PBMC. As shown in the figure below, CLN-978 demonstrated significant tumor growth inhibition at every dose level tested, both via intravenous ("IV") or subcutaneous ("SC") administration. Furthermore, at the 3 microgram per kilogram dose level and above, CLN-978 treatment resulted in a complete response in 100% of treated mice, regardless of route of administration.

24

Antitumor Activity of CLN-978 in a Raji-luciferase human PBMC mouse model

Consistent with the tumor growth inhibition, we observed a statistically significant reduction in the number of both Raji B.luc cells and normal human CD19+ B cells in all CLN-978 treated groups as shown in the figure below.

Reduction in normal B cells and tumor cells in peripheral blood after treatment with CLN-978 in the huPBMC Raji B.luc mouse model

Ongoing Clinical Development Plan

We submitted an IND for CLN-978 in the fourth quarter of 2022. The FDA cleared our IND in January 2023. We remain on track to begin a Phase 1 clinical trial in 2023 evaluating CLN-978 in patients with relapsed/refractory B-NHL.

25

CLN-617

Overview

CLN-617 is a fusion protein uniquely combining, in a single agent, two potent antitumor cytokines, IL-2 and IL-12, with a collagen-binding domain for the treatment of solid tumors. The combination of IL-2 and IL-12 therapeutic administration has previously been shown to synergistically enhance T and NK cell functions in vitro and mediated pronounced therapeutic activity in preclinical tumor models, even in well-established mouse models with primary and/or metastatic tumors. For nearly five decades, clinical researchers have studied the powerful role cytokines play in stimulating an immune response to cancer. However, severe toxicities associated with systemic cytokine administration and a short serum half-life have hindered their clinical development and broader commercial uptake. Despite numerous advancements in protein engineering, delivery and targeting mechanisms, there are currently only two FDA-approved cytokine-based cancer therapies, with the most recent approval occurring over twenty years ago.

We have included multiple differentiating features in CLN-617’s design in order to address the historical limitations of cytokine-based therapy. First, tumor retention following intratumoral injection is enabled by the collagen-binding domain, due to the presence of collagen in all solid tumors, and by HSA, which increases the molecular weight to further reduce the rate of diffusion out of the tumor tissue. Retention may help minimize the systemic dissemination and associated toxicities of IL-2 and IL-12 and prolong their immunostimulatory antitumor activity in the tumor. Second, CLN-617 is the only product candidate that we are aware of that co-delivers IL-2 and IL-12 proteins, functionally enabling synergistic T and NK cell activation. Third, CLN-617’s construct uses fully wild-type domains, which potentially reduces the immunogenicity risk associated with engineered cytokines. Finally, unlike other intratumoral cytokine-based therapies, CLN-617 does not rely on viral infection or nucleic acid transfection for in situ expression.

CLN-617 Design

In preclinical studies, a murine surrogate of CLN-617 demonstrated robust single agent antitumor activity in both treated and untreated tumors without inducing systemic toxicity, as measured by reduction in body weight. Given the broad expression of collagen across multiple tumor types and the well-validated anti-tumor activity of cytokine-based therapies, we believe CLN-617 may have utility across a broad range of solid tumors. We believe that CLN-617 is a first-in-class opportunity given it is the only anti-cancer product candidate we are aware of that is designed to co-deliver IL-2 and IL-12 cytokines and retain them in the tumor microenvironment.

The collagen-binding retention technology used in CLN-617 is based on technology that originated in the laboratory of Professor Karl Dane Wittrup at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology ("MIT"). We have further developed and refined this technology to create our Amber platform, which we believe represents a novel platform with the potential to broaden the therapeutic window of cytokines and other immunostimulatory agents with substantially reduced systemic toxicity.

Preclinical Data

A murine surrogate incorporating the murine homologs of the constituent domains of CLN-617 was generated and named mCLN-617. Retention of mCLN-617 was demonstrated in mice bearing B16F10 tumors which were treated either intratumorally or intravenously with mCLN-617. Two hours after treatment, the concentration of mCLN-617 was assessed in serum, and we found that drug levels following intratumoral injection were on average <5% that of intravenously administered mCLN-617 (left panel below). These results suggest that mCLN-617 is efficiently retained in the tumor, thereby limiting systemic distribution. Intratumoral injection also enhanced the anti-tumor activity of mCLN-617. At each tested dose level, intratumorally administered mCLN-617 outperformed intravenously administered mCLN-617 as measured by tumor growth inhibition (right panel below).

26

Reduced Systemic Levels of mCLN-617 and Improved Efficacy Following Intratumoral Versus Intravenous Administration

We utilized the MC38 syngeneic tumor model to assess whether mCLN-617 treatment could generate long-term immune memory following primary tumor clearance. As shown in the left panel below, mCLN-617 led to 100% complete responses in treated animals, whereas no complete responses were observed in control or anti-PD1 treated groups. Subsequently, we re-injected tumors into animals that achieved a complete response. As shown in the right panel below, five out of ten mice previously treated with mCLN-617 rejected the newly injected tumors, and all tumors that grew out did so at a slower rate than tumors in age-matched naïve controls. Similar results were achieved in the CT26 syngeneic tumor model.

High Complete Response Rate and Memory Response Following mCLN-617 Treatment

We demonstrated that in addition to mediating long-term memory, mCLN-617 is capable of generating responses against established untreated distal tumors due to the induction of systemic immunity, also known as an abscopal effect. We utilized C57BL/6 mice bearing two MC38 tumors, only one of which was treated with mCLN-617, either alone or in combination with systemically delivered anti-PD1 antibody. mCLN-617 alone mediated significant regression, including complete responses, of both the treated and untreated tumors. The effect was more consistent and durable in the untreated tumor when combined with anti-PD1, despite no significant survival benefit with anti-PD1 treatment alone. These results demonstrate both an abscopal effect and synergy of mCLN-617 with systemically administered anti-PD1 antibody.

27

Intratumorally delivered mCLN-617 Inhibits Tumor Growth in Both Treated and Untreated Tumors and Synergizes with Systemically Delivered Anti-PD1 Therapy

Through our ongoing studies with mCLN-617, we are seeking to characterize the mechanism of action by which a locally retained cytokine fusion can generate robust systemic anti-tumor immunity. Studies with mCLN-617 in mice bearing two MC38 tumors have thus far demonstrated an improved ratio of effector T cells to immunosuppressive regulatory T cells in both treated and untreated tumors. Furthermore, tumor-specific T cells expanded in peripheral blood, providing evidence of a vaccine-like mechanism of action.

The fully human CLN-617 clinical candidate has been generated, and the bioactivity of both cytokines and the collagen-binding domain has been confirmed in vitro. Both a non-GLP pharmacokinetic study and a GLP toxicology study with CLN-617 have been conducted in non-human primates to support an IND filing.

Based on the results of our preclinical studies with mCLN-617, we believe that the inclusion of a collagen-binding domain by our Amber platform has the potential to allow for the safe retention of high levels of cytokines in the tumor microenvironment. While remarkable progress has been made in the treatment of cancer with the adoption of checkpoint inhibitors, including pembrolizumab, ipilimumab, and nivolumab, only a fraction of patients with solid tumors respond to these therapies. We believe a well-tolerated agent that can deliver the functional synergies of IL-2 and IL-12 has the potential to treat a broad range of solid tumors, including those that are not responsive to checkpoint inhibitors.

In February 2023, we filed the IND for CLN-617 and intend to initiate a Phase 1 study by the end of 2023, pending IND clearance.

Our Other Preclinical Programs

In addition to the product candidates described above, we are actively developing several preclinical oncology programs, all in the discovery stage, including our collaboration with Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai for the development of novel hematopoietic progenitor kinase 1 ("HPK1") degraders.

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by the rapid evolution of technologies and understanding of disease etiology, intense competition and a strong emphasis on intellectual property. We believe that our differentiated business model, approach, scientific capabilities, know-how and experience provide us with competitive advantages. However, we face, and will continue to face, competition from companies focused on more traditional therapeutic modalities, such as small-molecule inhibitors. We expect substantial competition from multiple sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical, and existing or emerging biotechnology companies, academic research institutions, governmental agencies, and public and private research institutions worldwide. Many of our competitors, either alone or through collaborations, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals, and marketing approved products than we do. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These companies also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and recruiting patients in clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. As a result, our competitors may discover, develop, license or commercialize products before or more successfully than we do.

28

We also face competition more broadly across the oncology market for cost-effective and reimbursable cancer treatments. The most common methods of treating patients with cancer are surgery, radiation and drug therapy, including chemotherapy, hormone therapy, biologic therapy, such as monoclonal and bispecific antibodies, immunotherapy, cell-based therapy and targeted therapy, or a combination of any such methods. There are a variety of available drug therapies marketed for cancer. In many cases, these drugs are administered in combination to enhance efficacy. While our product candidates, if any are approved, may compete with these existing drugs and other therapies, to the extent they are ultimately used in combination with or as an adjunct to these therapies, our product candidates may not be competitive with them. Some of these drugs are branded and subject to patent protection, and others are available on a generic basis. Insurers and other third-party payors may also encourage the use of generic products or specific branded products. As a result, we may face challenges in obtaining market acceptance of, and gaining significant share of the market for, any of our product candidates that we successfully introduce to the market. In addition, many companies are developing new oncology therapeutics, and we cannot predict what the standard of care will be as our product candidates progress through clinical development.

With respect to zipalertinib, which we are co-developing with an affiliate of Taiho, we are aware of other EGFR inhibitors that have accelerated approval or are in clinical development for the treatment of NSCLC patients harboring EGFRex20ins mutations. In May 2021, Rybrevant (amivantimab), an EGFR/cMET bispecific antibody that was developed and is now marketed by Johnson & Johnson obtained accelerated approval from the FDA for adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFRex20ins mutations whose disease has progressed on or after platinum-based chemotherapy. Additionally, in September 2021, Exkivity (mobocertinib), which was developed and is now marketed by Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Inc., obtained accelerated approval from the FDA for adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFRex20ins mutations whose disease has progressed on or after platinum-based chemotherapy. We believe that the most advanced clinical-stage programs for EGFRex20ins patients are sunvozertinib from Dizal Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd and and furmonertinib from ArriVent BioPharma, Inc. and Allist Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Other clinical-stage EGFR ex20ins TKI programs include Oric Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s ORIC-114 (Voronoi, Inc., in mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan) and Blueprint Medicine Corporation’s LNG-451.

With respect to CLN-049, we are aware of several companies that are developing bispecifics for the treatment of AML, including those targeting CD3 and CD33 (Amgen Inc. ("Amgen") and Amphivena Therapeutics, Inc.), CD123 (Macrogenics, Inc. and Xencor, Inc.), and CCL1/CLEC12A (Merus N.V. and Genentech, Inc.). Amgen is developing a bispecific T cell engager targeting FLT3 for AML. There are also several targeted small-molecule therapies approved for the treatment of r/r or first-line AML, including for AML with FLT3 mutations, such as Astellas Pharma Inc.’s XOSPATA (gilteritinib) and Novartis International AG’s ("Novartis") RYDAPT (midostaurin). We are also aware of other small molecules that are approved or in development for AML patients with FLT3 mutations, including IDH inhibitors, such as TIBSOVO (ivosidenib) by Servier Pharmaceuticals LLC and IDHIFA (enasidenib) by Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc., BCL2 inhibitors, such as VENCLEXTA (ventoclax) by AbbVie Inc., and hedgehog pathway inhibitors, such as DAURISMO (glasdegib) by Pfizer, Inc. ("Pfizer").

With respect to CLN-619, we are aware of several companies that are developing cancer therapies targeting MICA/B as a monotherapy and/or in combination with other agents, including: CanCure LLC, Genentech Inc., Novartis, and Bristol-Myers Squibb Company ("Bristol-Myers Squibb"). To our knowledge, none of them has entered clinical development.

With respect to CLN-418, we are unaware of any other candidates in development that combine 4-1BB and B7H4 in a single bispecific molecule. However, there are several candidates that target one or the other of these molecules. For example, urelumab by Bristol Meyers Squibb Company is a monoclonal antibody targeting 4-1BB. Several companies are developing monoclonal antibodies, antibody-drug conjugates, or (CD3) T-cell engagers directed towards B7H4. These companies include Amgen, Nextcure, Inc., Genmab A/S ("Genmab"), Pfizer, AstraZeneca plc ("AstraZeneca"), Seagen Inc., Mersana Therapeutics Inc., and Jiangsu Hansoh Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd. Several companies are also developing 4-1BB agonists that target other tumor associated antigens rather than B7H4 (e.g. PD-L1, FAP, CD40, etc.) including Genmab, Inhibrx, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH, and Roche AG ("Roche").

With respect to our CLN-978 program, we are aware of a number of companies developing product candidates that target CD19 or other tumor antigens relevant to B-cell ALL and B-NHL using immune cells or other cytotoxic modalities. These mainly include immune cell redirecting therapeutics (e.g., T cell engagers), adoptive cellular therapies (e.g., CAR-Ts) and antibody drug conjugates. Companies developing cell therapies or antibodies targeting CD19 include, but are not limited to, AstraZeneca, Morphosys AG, Novartis, Gilead Sciences Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Allogene Therapeutics Inc., Century Therapeutics, Inc., Nkarta Inc., Autolus Therapeutics plc, ADC Therapeutics, and Amgen.

With respect to CLN-617, we are not aware of any other drug candidates currently under development that integrate both IL-2 and IL-12 into a single multi-functional construct and stimulate the immune system in a tumor-specific manner. We are aware of several companies actively developing clinical-stage programs as either individual IL-2 or IL-12 therapies, including: Alkermes plc, Sanofi S.A., Philogen S.p.A., Roche, Apeiron Biologics AG, Werewolf Therapeutics, Inc., Xilio Therapeutics, Inc., and Dragonfly Therapeutics Inc.

29

If our competitors develop and commercialize drugs that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient to administer, are less expensive or have a more favorable label than our product candidates, we could see a reduction or elimination in our commercial opportunity. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their drugs more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. The key competitive factors affecting the success of all of our product candidates, if approved, are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience, price, the level of generic competition and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors.

License Agreements

DKFZ/Tübingen

Our partially-owned subsidiary Cullinan Florentine is party to an exclusive license agreement (the "DKFZ/Tübingen License Agreement"), with Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum ("DKFZ"), Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen, Faculty of Medicine ("University of Tübingen"), and Universitätsmedizin Gesellschaft für Forschung und Entwicklung mbH, Tübingen ("UFE"). Pursuant to the DKFZ/Tübingen License Agreement, DKFZ and University of Tübingen, collectively referred to as the Licensor, granted to Cullinan Florentine an exclusive (even as to Licensor, UFE and its and their affiliates), worldwide, milestone- and royalty-bearing, license under certain licensed patent rights, applications, technical information and know-how, with the right to grant sublicenses through multiple tiers to research, develop, commercialize or otherwise exploit licensed products, itself and through its affiliates and third parties, within the field. Cullinan Florentine has the sole right, but not the obligation, to prosecute and maintain all licensed patent rights worldwide, provided that Licensor may take over or continue such prosecution and maintenance if Cullinan Florentine elects to cease the prosecution or maintenance of a licensed patent right.

Under the DKFZ/Tübingen License Agreement, Cullinan Florentine is obligated to achieve certain regulatory and research and development performance benchmarks (collectively, the "Performance Benchmarks"), by certain specified dates (collectively, the "Performance Dates"). If a Performance Benchmark is not achievable by the applicable Performance Date, Cullinan Florentine may extend the Performance Date for any single Performance Benchmark by a mid-single digit amount of months by providing written notice to Licensor and paying a non-refundable, non-creditable extension fee per each such extension. Cullinan Florentine may extend the Performance Date for any single Performance Benchmark up to a low single digit amount of times, provided that Cullinan Florentine may only request an extension a mid-single digit amount of times. If Cullinan Florentine is unable to seek a further extension per the preceding sentence, then Cullinan Florentine may seek a further extension by providing written notice to Licensor and any such extension shall be subject to the prior written approval of the Licensor, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed. As of December 31, 2022, Cullinan Florentine has met the first performance benchmark to create a master cell bank.

Additionally, Cullinan Florentine shall pay certain non-refundable, non-creditable milestone payments to Licensor upon the occurrence of certain clinical and regulatory events by a licensed product, whether triggered by Cullinan Florentine, its affiliates or sublicensees. Each milestone payment is paid one time only up to an aggregate of $28.0 million. No milestones have been achieved to date under the DKFZ/Tübingen License Agreement.

Furthermore, Cullinan Florentine is required to pay running low to mid-single digit royalty percentage on net sales of each licensed product on a country-by-country and product-by-product basis during the royalty term, subject to certain offsets or reductions. The aggregate, worldwide royalties due to Licensor for net sales of any licensed product in a calendar year shall not be reduced to an amount less than low to mid-single digit percentages. Such royalty obligations will expire on a country-by-country and product-by-product basis upon the later of (a) the expiration of the last valid claim of a patent which covers a product in such country and (b) a low double-digit anniversary following the first commercial sale of a product in such country. Under certain conditions upon a first change in control, Cullinan Florentine shall pay a non-refundable, non-creditable mid-single digit percent of sale proceeds, provided, however, that such payment shall not be required following consummation of an initial public offering of Cullinan Florentine.

Either party may terminate the agreement upon a material breach by the other party or insolvency of the other party. Cullinan Florentine may terminate the DKFZ/Tübingen License Agreement for any or no reason after the first filing of an IND or clinical trial agreement, by providing prior written notice. Licensor may terminate the agreement by providing prior written notice, if Cullinan Florentine or any of its affiliates challenges the validity of certain patent rights. Unless earlier terminated, the DKFZ/Tübingen License Agreement continues on a perpetual basis. Refer to Note 7, License and Collaboration Agreements, of our consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for further detail regarding the DKFZ/Tübingen License Agreement.

30

MIT

Our partially-owned subsidiary Cullinan Amber is party to an exclusive patent license agreement (the "MIT License Agreement") with MIT. Pursuant to the MIT License Agreement, MIT granted to Cullinan Amber an exclusive, worldwide, milestone-, equity- and royalty-bearing license under certain licensed patent rights and applications, with the right to grant sublicenses through three tiers (so long as Cullinan Amber remains an exclusive licensee of the patent rights in the field worldwide) to develop, make, have made, use, sell, have sold, offer to sell, lease, and import licensed products containing specific fusion proteins in the field of diagnosis, prognosis, prophylaxis or treatment of cancer in humans or other animals. MIT shall prepare, file, prosecute and maintain all of the patent rights, and Cullinan Amber shall cooperate with the prosecution, provide comments on patent prosecution documents, and pay all fees and costs relating to such prosecution and maintenance.

Cullinan Amber shall reimburse MIT for certain documented, out-of-pocket expenses incurred by MIT in connection with the preparation, filing, prosecution, maintenance and defense of the patent rights. The MIT License Agreement also provides for anti-dilution adjustments, requiring Cullinan Amber to issue MIT additional shares to ensure the shares issued to MIT do not equal less than the mid-single digit percentage amount until a financing threshold representing the aggregate investment in Cullinan Amber is reached. MIT was also granted participation rights, up to a low double-digit percentage of the securities issued, in any proposed financings of Cullinan Amber. Cullinan Amber is also responsible for paying non-refundable, creditable annual license maintenance fees in an increasing amount over a certain number of years of the license and a fixed amount subsequent to this period of time. In addition, MIT granted to Cullinan Amber an exclusive option to amend the definition of field to include expansion fields, and each such amendment would trigger the payment to MIT of an amendment fee and cause an amendment, to be negotiated upon exercise of the option, to Cullinan Amber’s financial obligations with respect to the licensed products to reflect the additional rights and value being added.

Additionally, Cullinan Amber shall pay certain non-refundable, non-creditable milestone payments to MIT upon the achievement by itself or its sublicensees of certain clinical and regulatory milestones in an aggregate amount up to $7.0 million for each distinct licensed product. Each milestone payment is paid one time only up to a certain payment amount, except there are separate milestone payments payable for a second and third indication of a licensed product in an aggregate amount up to $5.5 million per product. Cullinan Amber shall also pay to MIT certain one-time milestone payments for the achievement of certain commercial milestones based on the calculation of net sales across all licensed products in all indications in an aggregate amount up to $12.5 million. As of December, 31, 2022, no milestones have been achieved under the MIT License Agreement.

Under certain conditions upon a change in control, Cullinan Amber is required to pay a specified change in control fee and Cullinan Amber’s clinical and regulatory milestone payments shall be increased by a certain low three-digit percentage amount.

Furthermore, Cullinan Amber is required to pay a running mid-single digit royalty percentage on net sales of all licensed products for each reporting period, subject to certain offsets or reductions. The royalties due to MIT for net sales of all licensed products shall not be reduced by more than 50%. Cullinan Amber is also required to share any income from sublicensing the licensed products, with the percentage to be determined by the clinical phase of the licensed product, no greater than low-to-mid double-digit percentages. Such royalty obligations will expire on a country-by-country and product-by-product basis upon the expiration or abandonment of all issued patents and filed patent applications within the patent rights.

Under the MIT License Agreement, MIT must notify Cullinan Amber of certain patentable inventions conceived and reduced to practice during a certain period of time ("Improvements") and Cullinan Amber has the option to acquire rights to those Improvements upon MIT’s approval of a business and development plan, not to be unreasonably withheld, for a specified fee. In addition to this specified fee, Cullinan Amber’s financial obligations with respect to the Improvements may be amended to reflect the value being added, such as by adding an upfront fee, maintenance fees, and milestone payments.

Cullinan Amber may voluntarily terminate the MIT License Agreement for any reason after providing written notice within a specified period of time in advance, provided that all amounts due to MIT have been paid. MIT has the right to terminate the MIT License Agreement upon written notice to Cullinan Amber if Cullinan Amber ceases to carry out its business related to the MIT License Agreement. Either party may terminate the MIT License Agreement upon a material breach by the other party. Unless earlier terminated, the MIT License Agreement shall remain in effect until the expiration or abandonment of all issued patents and the filed patent application within the patent rights. Refer to Note 7, License and Collaboration Agreements, of our consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for further detail regarding the MIT License Agreement.

31

Adimab

We have a collaboration agreement (the "Adimab Collaboration Agreement"), with Adimab. Pursuant to the Adimab Collaboration Agreement, we selected a single-digit number of biological targets against which Adimab used its proprietary platform technology to discover and/or optimize antibodies based upon mutually agreed upon research plans. Under the Adimab Collaboration Agreement, we have the ability to select a specified low single-digit number of additional biological targets against which Adimab will provide additional antibody discovery and optimization services.

During the research term and evaluation term for a given research program with Adimab, we have a non-exclusive worldwide license under Adimab’s technology to perform certain research activities and to evaluate the program antibodies to determine whether we want to exercise its option to obtain a royalty-free, fully paid, non-exclusive license under Adimab’s background patent rights to exploit such antibodies sublicensable through multiple tiers (the "Adimab Option"). In the event we exercise the Adimab Option, we will pay an option fee for each target subject to certain adjustments.

Under the Adimab Collaboration Agreement, we paid a one-time, non-creditable, non-refundable technology access fee. We are also required to pay an annual access fee and research funding fees in connection with Adimab’s full-time employees’ compensation for performance of Adimab’s obligations under the Adimab Collaboration Agreement. We are also obligated to make certain research delivery, clinical and sales milestone payments to Adimab in an aggregate amount of up to $15.8 million for each product, on a product-by-product basis, subject to certain reductions and discounts.

Furthermore, we are obligated to pay certain royalty payments on a product-by-product basis at a low single-digit percentage of annual aggregate worldwide net sales. Such royalty obligations will expire on a country-by-country and product-by-product basis upon the later of (a) a certain low double-digit number of years after the first commercial sale of such product in such country and (b) the expiration of the last issued and not expired, permanently revoked, or invalid claim within a program patent covering such product as defined in the agreement.

We may terminate the Adimab Collaboration Agreement at any time, for any reason, upon a specified period advance written notice. The term of the Adimab Collaboration Agreement expires upon the last research program’s evaluation term in the event no Adimab Option is exercised or, in the event an Adimab Option is exercised, after the royalty term thereof expires at the later of a specified period or invalid patent coverage of the relevant product. Refer to Note 7, License and Collaboration Agreements, of our consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for further detail regarding the Adimab Collaboration Agreement.

Harbour

In February 2023, we entered into a License and Collaboration Agreement (the “Harbour License Agreement”) with Harbour BioMed US Inc. (“Harbour”), pursuant to which Harbour granted us an exclusive license for the development, manufacturing and commercialization of HBM7008, which we now refer to as CLN-418, in the U.S.

Under the terms of the Harbour License Agreement, we paid Harbour an upfront license fee of $25 million upon entry into the agreement. Additionally, pursuant to the agreement, Harbour will be eligible to receive (i) up to $148 million in milestone payments based on the achievement of pre-specified development and regulatory milestones and (ii) up to an additional $415 million in sales-based milestones as well as tiered royalties up to high teens on a licensed product-by-licensed product basis, as a percentage of U.S. commercial sales. Harbour will grant us certain intellectual property rights to enable us to perform our obligations and exercise our rights under the Harbour License Agreement.

Unless earlier terminated, the Harbour License Agreement will continue in effect until the expiration of our royalty obligations. The Harbour License Agreement may be terminated by either party for a material breach by the other party, subject to notice and cure provisions, or in the event of the other party’s insolvency. We may terminate the Harbour License Agreement for convenience by providing 90 days’ written notice to Harbour.

Intellectual Property

Our intellectual property is critical to our business, and we strive to protect it, including by obtaining, maintaining, defending, and enforcing patents and other intellectual property, in the U.S. and internationally, for our proprietary therapeutic molecules, technology, improvements, platforms, product candidates and components thereof, novel biological discoveries, new therapeutic approaches and potential indications, and other inventions that are important to our business. For our product candidates, generally we initially pursue patent protection covering compositions of matter, methods of use, and methods of production. Throughout the development of our product candidates, we will seek to identify additional means of obtaining patent protection that would potentially enhance commercial success, including improvement to pharmaceutical formulations, methods of use and production.

32

As of February 16, 2023, our patent portfolio includes 9 patent families, including both patent applications we own, and patent applications exclusively in-licensed from external technology originators in a respective field. Specifically, we have exclusively in-licensed at least 31 patent applications pending worldwide. Patents that may issue from our pending patent applications, are expected to expire between 2039 and 2043, excluding any patent term adjustments or extensions, if applicable, that may be available. As to the patent term extension to restore patent term effectively lost following patent grant but during the FDA regulatory review process, the restoration period cannot be longer than five years and the total patent term including the restoration period must not exceed 14 years following FDA approval.

We, through our subsidiary Cullinan MICA, own two patent families related to our CLN-619 product candidate, including patent families directed to compositions, and methods of using such compositions therapeutically. The family of patent applications with claims directed to CLN-619 compositions, if issued, are expected to expire in 2039, excluding any patent term adjustments or extensions, if applicable. For the first of these patent families, patent applications have so far been filed in Australia, Brazil, Canada, mainland China, the European Patent Office (the "EPO"), India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, the Philippines, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, Thailand, the U.S., and Vietnam. A patent family with claims directed to additional anti-MICA antibody compositions and methods of use, if issued, is expected to expire in 2043, excluding any patent term adjustments or extensions, if applicable. A U.S. provisional application has been filed under this family.

Our portfolio related to our CLN-049 product candidate includes one patent family, in-licensed from the University of Tubingen, directed to compositions, and methods of using such compositions therapeutically. This family of patent applications contain claims directed to CLN-049 compositions, which, if issued, are expected to expire in 2039, excluding any patent term adjustments or extensions, if applicable. Patent applications have so far been filed for this family in Australia, Brazil, Canada, mainland China, the EPO, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, Thailand, the U.S. and Vietnam.

Our portfolio related to our CLN-617 product candidate and Cullinan Amber program includes two patent families. The first family was in-licensed from MIT, directed to compositions, and methods of using such compositions therapeutically. This family of patent applications contain claims covering Cullinan Amber related compositions, which, if issued, are expected to expire in 2039, excluding any patent term adjustments or extensions, if applicable. Patent applications have so far been filed for this family in Australia, Brazil, Canada, mainland China, the EPO, Israel, Japan, Korea, Singapore, and the U.S. The second family is a PCT application owned by Cullinan Amber, which is directed to certain compositions, and methods of using such compositions therapeutically. This family contains claims covering additional Cullinan Amber related compositions, which, if issued, are expected to expire in 2041, excluding any patent term adjustments or extensions, if applicable.

Our portfolio related to our CLN-978 product candidate includes three patent families, directed to compositions, and methods of using such compositions therapeutically. The first two families of patent applications contain claims directed to CLN-978 compositions, which, if issued, are expected to expire in 2040, excluding any patent term adjustments or extensions, if applicable. Patent applications for both families have been filed in Australia, Canada, mainland China, the EPO, Israel, Japan, and the U.S. The third family of patent applications contains claims directed to alternative formats of compositions related to CLN-978, which, if issued, are expected to expire in 2039. Patent applications have been filed for this family in Australia, Canada, mainland China, the EPO, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, South Africa and the U.S.

Our portfolio related to compositions comprising compounds which degrade HPK1 and methods of using such compounds therapeutically, includes one patent family that is jointly owned with Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. This patent family contains claims directed to compositions comprising HPK1 degraders and methods of using such compounds. A PCT application has been filed for this patent family. Applications claiming priority to the PCT application, if issued, are expected to expire in 2042, excluding any patent term adjustments or extensions.

Individual patents extend for varying periods depending on the date of filing of the patent application or the date of patent issuance and the legal term of patents in the countries in which they are obtained. Generally, patents issued for regularly filed applications in the U.S. are granted a term of 20 years from the earliest effective non-provisional filing date. In addition, in certain instances, a patent term can be extended to recapture a portion of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the "USPTO") review period in issuing the patent as well as a portion of the term effectively lost as a result of the FDA regulatory review period.

33

Manufacturing

We do not own or operate, and currently have no plans to establish, any good manufacturing practice ("GMP"), manufacturing facilities. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates for preclinical and clinical testing, as well as for commercial manufacture if any of our product candidates obtain marketing approval. We also rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties to package, label, store and distribute our investigational product candidates and, if marketing approval is obtained, our commercial products. We believe this strategy allows us to maintain a more efficient infrastructure by eliminating the need for us to invest in our own manufacturing facilities, equipment and personnel while also enabling us to focus our expertise and resources on the development of new product candidates.

We receive material from our contract manufacturing organizations ("CMOs") for preclinical testing. We receive clinical supply material manufactured in compliance with current GMP requirements ("cGMPs"), and we conduct audits before and during the trial, in cooperation with a CMO, to ensure compliance with the mutually agreed-upon process descriptions and cGMP regulations.

Zipalertinib, which we are co-developing with an affiliate of Taiho, is a small molecule that is manufactured in synthetic processes from available starting materials. The chemistry appears amenable to scale-up and does not currently require unusual equipment in the manufacturing process. We generally expect to rely on third parties for the manufacture of companion diagnostics, which are assays or tests that identify an appropriate patient population for zipalertinib. Depending on the technology solutions we choose, we may rely on multiple third parties to manufacture and sell a single test.

To date, we have obtained drug substance and drug product from single-source third-party contract manufacturers, which is typical for this stage of development. We utilize a global network of manufacturers for our programs in development, with vendors located in the U.S., Europe, and Asia. Any reduction or halt in supply of drug substance or drug product from these contract manufacturers could limit our ability to develop our product candidates until we find a qualified replacement contract manufacturer. However, we have procured or have plans to procure sufficient drug substance to supply the planned initial clinical studies for our programs. At the appropriate time in development, we intend to put in place agreements under which our third-party contract manufacturers will generally provide us with necessary quantities of drug substance and drug product on a project-by-project basis, based on our projected development and commercial supply needs.

CLN-049, CLN-619, CLN-418, CLN-978 and CLN-617 are manufactured from a vial of a master cell bank ("MCB"), from the respective production cell lines. We have one MCB for each program that was produced and tested in accordance with cGMPs and applicable regulations. We either already have in place or intend to produce working cell banks for each product candidate later in product development. It is possible that we could lose multiple cell banks from multiple locations and have our manufacturing severely impacted by the need to replace the cell banks. However, we believe we have adequate backup should any particular cell bank be lost in a catastrophic event.

Governmental Regulation

U.S. Food and Drug Administration Regulation

The FDA and other U.S. regulatory authorities at federal, state and local levels, as well as in foreign countries, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, safety, efficacy, import, export, labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, record keeping, approval, advertising, promotion, marketing, post-approval monitoring and post-approval reporting of drugs and biologics such as those we are developing. We, along with our vendors, collaboration partners, clinical research organizations ("CROs"), clinical trial investigators, and CMOs will be required to navigate the various preclinical, clinical, manufacturing and commercial approval requirements of the governing regulatory agencies of the countries in which we wish to conduct studies or seek approval of our product candidates. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals of drugs and ensuring subsequent compliance with appropriate U.S. federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements at any time during the product development process or post-approval may subject an applicant to delays in development or approval, as well as administrative and judicial sanctions.

In the U.S., the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (as amended, the “FDCA"), and biologics under the FDCA and the Public Health Service Act (as amended, the "PHSA"), and their implementing regulations. Both drugs and biologics are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. Our product candidates are early-stage and have not been approved by the FDA for marketing in the U.S.

34

Our product candidates must be approved for therapeutic indications by the FDA before they may be marketed in the U.S. For our drug product candidates regulated under the FDCA, such as zipalertinib, the FDA must approve a New Drug Application ("NDA"). For our biologic product candidates regulated under the FDCA and PHSA, such as CLN-049, CLN-619, CLN-418, and CLN-978, the FDA must approve a Biologics License Application ("BLA"). The process is similar and generally involves the following:

Preclinical and Clinical Trials

Before testing any drug or biologic in humans, the product candidate must undergo rigorous preclinical testing. Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluations of chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess safety and in some cases to establish the rationale for therapeutic use. The conduct of preclinical studies is subject to federal and state regulations and requirements, including GLP requirements for safety and toxicology studies. In the U.S., the results of the preclinical studies, together with manufacturing information and analytical data must be submitted to the FDA as part of an IND.

An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational product to humans and must become effective before clinical trials may begin. The central focus of an IND submission is on the general investigational plan and the protocol(s) for clinical studies. The IND also includes results of animal and in vitro studies assessing the toxicology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacology and pharmacodynamic characteristics of the product; chemistry, manufacturing and controls information; and any available human data or literature to support the use of the investigational product. In the U.S., the IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, raises concerns or questions about the conduct of the clinical trial, including concerns that human research subjects will be exposed to unreasonable health risks and imposes a clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. Some long-term preclinical testing may continue after the IND is submitted. Accordingly, submission of an IND may or may not result in FDA authorization to begin a trial.

35

The clinical stage of development involves the administration of the product candidate to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control, in accordance with GCP requirements, which include the requirements that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria and the parameters and criteria to be used in monitoring safety and evaluating effectiveness, including stopping rules that assure a clinical study will be stopped if certain adverse events should occur. Each protocol, and any subsequent amendments to the protocol, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Furthermore, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB, either centrally or at each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted, to ensure that the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable related to the anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed.

The FDA may, at any time during the initial 30-day IND review period or while clinical trials are ongoing under the IND, impose a partial or complete clinical hold based on concerns for patient safety and/or noncompliance with regulatory requirements. This order issued by the FDA would delay a proposed clinical study or cause suspension of an ongoing study until all outstanding concerns have been adequately addressed, and the FDA has notified us that investigations may proceed. Imposition of a clinical hold could cause significant delays or difficulties in completing planned clinical studies in a timely manner. In addition, the IRB or the sponsor may suspend or discontinue a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Some studies also include oversight by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical study sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board, which provides authorization for whether or not a study may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the study and may halt the clinical trial if it determines that there is an unacceptable safety risk for subjects or other grounds, such as no demonstration of efficacy. There also are requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trials to public registries. In the U.S., information about applicable clinical trials, including clinical trials results, must be submitted within specific timeframes for publication on the www.clinicaltrials.gov website.

A sponsor who wishes to conduct a clinical trial outside of the U.S. may, but need not, obtain FDA authorization to conduct the clinical trial under an IND. The FDA will accept a well-designed and well-conducted foreign clinical study not conducted under an IND if the study was conducted in accordance with GCP requirements, and the FDA is able to validate the data through an onsite inspection if deemed necessary.

Clinical trials to evaluate therapeutic indications to support NDAs and BLAs for marketing approval are typically conducted in three sequential phases, which may overlap or be combined.

Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication and are commonly intended to generate additional safety data regarding use of the product in a clinical setting. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of approval of an NDA or BLA. Failure to exhibit due diligence with regard to conducting required Phase 4 clinical trials could result in withdrawal of approval for products.

36

During all phases of clinical development, regulatory agencies require extensive monitoring and auditing of all clinical activities, clinical data, and clinical study investigators. Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials, among other information, must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators fifteen days after the trial sponsor determines the information qualifies for reporting for serious and unexpected suspected adverse events, findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human participants exposed to the drug or biologic and any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The sponsor must also notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction as soon as possible but in no case later than seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the drug or biological characteristics of the product candidate and finalize a process for manufacturing the drug product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and manufacturers must develop, among other things, methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final drug product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life and to identify appropriate storage conditions for the product candidate.

Expanded Access

Expanded access, sometimes called compassionate use, is the use of investigational products outside of clinical trials to treat patients with serious or immediately life-threatening diseases or conditions when there are no comparable or satisfactory alternative treatment options. FDA regulations allow access to investigational products under an IND by us or the treating physician for treatment purposes on a case-by-case basis for the following groups: individual patients (single-patient INDs for treatment in emergency settings and non-emergency settings); intermediate-size patient populations; and larger populations for use of the investigational product under a treatment protocol or treatment IND.

There is no requirement for a company to provide expanded access to its investigational product. However, if a company decides to make its investigational product available for expanded access, the FDA reviews each request for expanded access and determines if treatment may proceed. Expanded access may be appropriate when all of the following criteria apply: the patient has a serious or immediately life-threatening disease or condition, and there is no comparable or satisfactory alternative therapy to diagnose, monitor, or treat the disease or condition; the potential benefit justifies the potential risks of the treatment and the potential risks are not unreasonable in the context of the disease or condition to be treated; and providing the investigational product for the requested use will not interfere with the initiation, conduct, or completion of clinical investigations that could support marketing approval of the expanded access use or otherwise compromise the potential development of the expanded access use.

In the U.S., the Right to Try Act, among other things, provides an additional mechanism for patients with a life-threatening condition who have exhausted approved treatments and are unable to participate in clinical trials to access certain investigational products that have completed a Phase 1 clinical trial, are the subject of an active IND, and are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Unlike the expanded access framework described above, the Right to Try Act does not require the FDA to review or approve requests for use of the investigational product.

Under the FDCA, sponsors of one or more investigational products for the treatment of a serious disease or condition must make publicly available their policy for evaluating and responding to requests for expanded access for individual patients. Sponsors are required to make such policies publicly available upon the earlier of initiation of a Phase 2 or Phase 3 study, or 15 days after the investigational drug or biologic receives designation as a Breakthrough Therapy, Fast Track product, or regenerative medicine advanced therapy. There is no obligation for a sponsor to make its investigational products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act, but the sponsor must develop an internal policy and respond to patient requests according to that policy.

37

FDA Marketing Application Review and Approval Process

Assuming successful completion of the required clinical testing, the results of the preclinical studies and clinical trials, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacture, controls and proposed labeling, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA or BLA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. An NDA is a request for approval to market a new drug for one or more specified indications, and a BLA is a request for approval to market a new biologic for one or more specified indications. The NDA or BLA must include all relevant data available from pertinent preclinical studies and clinical studies, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls, and proposed labeling, among other things. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and efficacy of a product’s use or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and efficacy of the investigational drug, or the safety, purity and potency of the investigational biologic, to the satisfaction of the FDA. FDA approval of an NDA or BLA must be obtained before a drug or biologic may be marketed in the U.S.

In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act ("PREA"), certain NDAs and BLAs and certain supplements to an NDA or BLA must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug or biological product candidate for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act requires that a sponsor who is planning to submit a marketing application or supplement to an application for a drug or biological product that includes a new active ingredient or clinically active component, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan within 60 days after an end-of-Phase 2 meeting or as may be agreed between the sponsor and the FDA. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to a drug or biological product for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted.

In the U.S., the FDA reviews all submitted NDAs and BLAs to ensure they are sufficiently complete to permit substantive review before it accepts them for filing and may request additional information rather than accepting the NDA or BLA for filing. The FDA makes a decision on accepting an NDA or BLA for filing within 60 days of receipt, and such decision could include a refusal to file by the FDA. The FDA may refuse to file any BLA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission and may request additional information. In this event, the BLA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the application. The FDA reviews an NDA or BLA to determine, among other things, whether the product is safe and effective and whether the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packaged or held meets standards, including cGMP requirements, designed to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity. Under the goals and polices agreed to by the FDA under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act ("PDUFA"), the FDA targets ten months from the filing date in which to complete its initial review of an original NDA or BLA and respond to the applicant, and six months from the filing date of an original NDA or BLA filed for priority review. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard or priority NDAs or BLAs, and the review process is often extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification.

Further, under PDUFA, as amended, each NDA or BLA must be accompanied by a user fee, and the sponsor of an approved NDA or BLA is also subject to an annual program fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. Fee waivers or reductions may be available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on NDAs or BLAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication.

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

Before approving an NDA or BLA, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA or BLA, the FDA may inspect one or more clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCP and other requirements and the integrity of the clinical data submitted to the FDA. To assure GMP and GCP compliance, an applicant must incur significant expenditure of time, money and effort in the areas of training, record keeping, production, and quality control.

38

After evaluating the application and all related information, including the advisory committee recommendation, if any, and inspection reports regarding the manufacturing facilities and clinical trial sites, the FDA may issue an approval letter, or, in some cases, a complete response letter. A complete response letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application is not ready for approval. A complete response letter will usually describe all of the deficiencies that the FDA has identified in the NDA or BLA, except that where the FDA determines that the data supporting the application are inadequate to support approval, the FDA may issue the complete response letter without first conducting required inspections, testing submitted product lots, and/or reviewing proposed labeling. In issuing the complete response letter, the FDA may recommend actions that the applicant might take to place the NDA or BLA in condition for approval, including requests for additional information or clarification. Even with submission of this additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. If and when those conditions have been met to the FDA’s satisfaction, the FDA will typically issue an approval letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications.

Even if the FDA approves a product, depending on the specific risk(s) to be addressed, the FDA may limit the approved indications for use of the product, require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, require that post-approval studies, including Phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further assess a product’s safety or efficacy after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution and use restrictions or other risk management mechanisms under a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy ("REMS"), which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. REMS can include medication guides, communication plans for healthcare professionals, and elements to assure safe use ("ETASU"). ETASU can include, but are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring, and the use of patent registries. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-marketing studies or surveillance programs. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes, and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan drug designation ("ODD") to a drug or biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition, defined as a disease or condition with either a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals in the U.S., or a patient population of greater than 200,000 individuals in the U.S. when there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available the drug or biologic in the U.S. will be recovered from sales in the U.S. of that drug or biologic. ODD must be requested before submitting an NDA or BLA. After the FDA grants ODD, the generic identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. The granting of ODD does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.

If a product that has received ODD and subsequently receives the first FDA approval for that drug for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including a full NDA or BLA, to market the same drug or biologic for the same indication for seven years from the approval of the NDA or BLA, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity or if the FDA finds that the holder of the orphan drug exclusivity has not shown that it can assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the orphan drug to meet the needs of patients with the disease or condition for which the drug was designated. Orphan drug exclusivity does not prevent the FDA from approving a different drug or biologic for the same disease or condition, or the same drug or biologic for a different disease or condition. Among the other benefits of ODD are tax credits for certain research and a waiver of the NDA or BLA application user fee.

A designated orphan drug may not receive orphan drug exclusivity if it is approved for a use that is broader than the indication for which it received ODD. In addition, orphan drug exclusive marketing rights in the U.S. may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. The FDA has historically taken the position that the scope of orphan exclusivity aligns with the approved indication or uses of a product, rather than the disease or condition for which the product received orphan designation. However, on September 30, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision in Catalyst Pharms., Inc. v. Becerra holding that the scope of orphan drug exclusivity must align with the disease or condition for which the product received orphan designation, even if the product’s approval was for a narrower use or indication. The FDA announced on January 24, 2023 that despite the Catalyst decision, it will continue to apply its longstanding regulations, which tie the scope of orphan exclusivity to the uses or indications for which the drug is approved, rather than to the designation. The FDA’s application of its orphan drug regulations post-Catalyst could be the subject of future legislation or to further challenges in court, and it remains to be seen how this decision affects orphan drug exclusivity going forward.

39

Expedited Development and Review Programs

The FDA maintains several programs intended to facilitate and expedite development and review of new drugs and biologics to address unmet medical needs in the treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions. These programs include Fast Track designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation, priority review and accelerated approval. Fast Track designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation, priority review and accelerated approval do not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process.

A new drug or biologic is eligible for Fast Track designation if it is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for such disease or condition. Fast Track designation applies to the combination of the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. Fast Track designation provides increased opportunities for sponsor interactions with the FDA during preclinical and clinical development, in addition to the potential for rolling review once a marketing application is filed, meaning that the FDA may initiate review of sections of a Fast Track product’s application before the application is complete upon satisfaction of certain conditions.

In addition, a new drug or biological product may be eligible for Breakthrough Therapy designation if it is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug or biologic, alone or in combination with or more other drugs or biologics, may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. Breakthrough Therapy designation provides all the features of Fast Track designation in addition to intensive guidance on an efficient development program beginning as early as Phase 1, and FDA organizational commitment to expedited development, including involvement of senior managers and experienced review staff in a cross-disciplinary review, where appropriate.

Any product submitted to the FDA for approval, including a product with Fast Track or Breakthrough Therapy designation, may also be eligible for priority review. A product is eligible for priority review if it is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. For original NDAs and BLAs, priority review designation means the FDA’s goal is to take action on the marketing application within six months of the 60-day filing date (compared with ten months under standard review).

The FDA may grant accelerated approval to a product intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition that generally provides a meaningful therapeutic advantage to patients over available treatments, and demonstrates an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality ("IMM") that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on IMM or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments.

For drugs granted accelerated approval, the FDA generally requires sponsors to conduct, in a diligent manner, adequate and well-controlled post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the product’s clinical benefit. Failure to conduct required post-approval studies with due diligence, failure to confirm a clinical benefit during the post-approval studies, or dissemination of false or misleading promotional materials would allow the FDA to withdraw the product approval on an expedited basis. The Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022 (“FDORA”) enacted on December 29, 2022 as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 includes numerous reforms to the accelerated approval process for drugs and biologics and enables the FDA to require, as appropriate, that a post-approval study be underway prior to granting accelerated approval. FDORA also expands the expedited withdrawal procedures available to the FDA to allow the agency to use expedited procedures if a sponsor fails to conduct any required post-approval study of the product with due diligence. FDORA also adds the failure of a sponsor of a product approved under accelerated approval to conduct with due diligence any required post-approval study with respect to such product or to submit timely reports with respect to such product to the list of prohibited acts in the FDCA. All promotional materials for product candidates approved under accelerated approval are subject to prior review by the FDA unless the FDA informs the applicant otherwise.

FDA Approval or Clearance of Companion Diagnostics

In August 2014, the FDA issued final guidance clarifying the requirements that will apply to the development and approval of therapeutic products intended for use with in vitro companion diagnostics. According to the guidance, for novel drugs and biologics, a companion diagnostic device and its corresponding therapeutic should be approved or cleared contemporaneously by the FDA for the use indicated in the therapeutic product’s labeling. Approval or clearance of the companion diagnostic device will ensure that the device has been adequately evaluated and has adequate performance characteristics in the intended population. In July 2016, the FDA issued a draft guidance intended to assist sponsors of the therapeutic products and in vitro companion diagnostic devices on issues related to co-development of the products.

40

Under the FDCA, in vitro diagnostics, including companion diagnostics, are regulated as medical devices. In the U.S., the FDCA and its implementing regulations, and other federal and state statutes and regulations govern, among other things, medical device design and development, preclinical and clinical testing, premarket clearance or approval, registration and listing, manufacturing, labeling, storage, advertising and promotion, sales and distribution, export and import, and post-market surveillance. Unless an exemption applies, diagnostic tests require marketing clearance or approval from the FDA prior to commercial distribution.

The FDA previously has required in vitro companion diagnostics intended to select the patients who will respond to a product candidate to obtain premarket approval ("PMA"), simultaneously with approval of the therapeutic product candidate. The PMA process, including the gathering of clinical and preclinical data and the submission to and review by the FDA, can take several years or longer. It involves a rigorous premarket review during which the applicant must prepare and provide the FDA with reasonable assurance of the device’s safety and effectiveness and information about the device and its components regarding, among other things, device design, manufacturing and labeling. PMA applications are subject to an application fee.

A clinical trial is typically required for a PMA application and, in a small percentage of cases, the FDA may require a clinical study in support of a Premarket Notification under Section 510(k) of the FDCA. A manufacturer that wishes to conduct a clinical study involving the device is subject to the FDA’s investigational device exemption ("IDE") regulations. The IDE regulations distinguish between significant and non-significant risk device studies and the procedures for obtaining approval to begin the study differ accordingly. Also, some types of studies are exempt from the IDE regulations. A significant risk device presents a potential for serious risk to the health, safety, or welfare of a subject. Significant risk devices are devices that are substantially important in diagnosing, curing, mitigating, or treating disease or in preventing impairment to human health. Studies of devices that pose a significant risk require both FDA and an IRB approval prior to initiation of a clinical study. Many companion diagnostics are considered significant risk devices due to their role in diagnosing a disease or condition. Non-significant risk devices are devices that do not pose a significant risk to the human subjects. A non-significant risk device study requires only IRB approval prior to initiation of a clinical study.

After a device is placed on the market, it remains subject to significant regulatory requirements. Medical devices may be marketed only for the uses and indications for which they are cleared or approved. Device manufacturers must also establish registration and device listings with the FDA.

In the U.S., device manufacturers are also subject to the FDA’s medical device reporting regulations, which require that a manufacturer report to the FDA if a device it markets may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury, or has malfunctioned and the device or a similar device that it markets would be likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury, if the malfunction were to recur, and the FDA’s correction and removal reporting regulations, which require that manufacturers report to the FDA corrections or removals if undertaken to reduce a risk to health posed by the device or to remedy a violation of the FDCA that may present a risk to health. A medical device manufacturer’s manufacturing processes and those of its suppliers are required to comply with the applicable portions of the FDA's Quality System Regulation, which covers the methods and documentation of the design, testing, production, processes, controls, quality assurance, labeling, packaging and shipping of medical devices. Domestic facility records and manufacturing processes are subject to periodic unscheduled inspections by the FDA. The FDA also may inspect foreign facilities that export products to the U.S.

Post-Approval Requirements for Drugs and Biologics in the U.S.

In the U.S., drugs and biologics manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to recordkeeping, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, reporting of adverse experiences with the product, complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include restrictions on promoting products for unapproved uses or patient populations (known as “off-label use”) and limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities. Although physicians may prescribe approved products for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such uses. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, including not only by Company employees but also by agents of the Company or those speaking on the Company’s behalf, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in, among other things, adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties, including liabilities under the False Claims Act where products carry reimbursement under federal health care programs. Promotional materials for approved drugs and biologics must be submitted to the FDA in conjunction with their first use or first publication. Further, if there are any modifications to the product, including proposed changes to the indication, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new or supplemental NDA or BLA, which may require the development of additional data or preclinical studies and clinical trials.

The FDA may impose a number of post-approval requirements as a condition of approval of an NDA or BLA. For example, the FDA may require post-market testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization.

41

In addition, drug and biologics manufacturers and their subcontractors involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved products are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with ongoing regulatory requirements, including cGMP, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon us and our CMOs. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and, depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting requirements upon us and any third-party manufacturers that we may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP and other aspects of regulatory compliance Failure to comply with statutory and regulatory requirements can subject a manufacturer to possible legal or regulatory action, such as warning letters, suspension of manufacturing, product seizures, injunctions, civil penalties or criminal prosecution. There is also a continuing, annual program fee for any marketed product.

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

U.S. Patent Term Restoration and Marketing Exclusivity

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA approval of our future product candidates, some of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit restoration of the patent term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. Patent-term restoration, however, cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date and only those claims covering such approved drug product, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. The patent-term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of an NDA or BLA plus the time between the submission date of an NDA or BLA and the approval of that application, except that the review period is reduced by any time during which the applicant failed to exercise due diligence. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug is eligible for the extension and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. The USPTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. In the future, we may apply for restoration of patent term for our currently owned or licensed patents to add patent life beyond its current expiration date, depending on the expected length of the clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant NDA or BLA.

42

Regulatory exclusivity provisions under the FDCA also can delay the submission or the approval of certain applications. The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent marketing exclusivity within the U.S. to the first applicant to gain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the action of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA"), or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company for another version of such drug where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data required for approval. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement.

The FDCA also provides three years of exclusivity for an NDA, 505(b)(2) NDA or supplement to an existing NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, for example, new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the conditions of use associated with the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs for drugs containing the original active agent for other conditions of use. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA. However, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

In addition, both drugs and biologics can also obtain pediatric exclusivity in the U.S. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods and patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protection or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric study in accordance with an FDA-issued Written Request for such a study.

U.S. Biosimilars and Exclusivity

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the "ACA"), includes a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (the "BPCIA"), which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. The FDA has issued several guidance documents outlining an approach to review and approval of biosimilars in the U.S. Biosimilarity, which requires that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency, can be shown through analytical studies, animal studies, and a clinical study or studies. Interchangeability requires that a product is biosimilar to the reference product, and the product must demonstrate that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient and, for products that are administered multiple times to an individual, the biologic and the reference biologic may be alternated or switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic.

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

The BPCIA is complex and continues to be interpreted and implemented by the FDA. In addition, government proposals have sought to reduce the 12-year reference product exclusivity period. Other aspects of the ACA, some of which may impact the BPCIA exclusivity provisions, have also been the subject of recent litigation. As a result, the ultimate impact, implementation, and regulatory interpretation of the BPCIA remain subject to significant uncertainty.

Other U.S. Regulatory Matters

Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities of product candidates following product approval, where applicable, or commercialization are also subject to regulation by numerous regulatory authorities in the U.S. in addition to the FDA, which may include the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("CMS"), other divisions of the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS"), the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and state and local governments and governmental agencies.

43

Other Healthcare Laws in the U.S.

In the U.S., healthcare providers, physicians, and third-party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any products for which we obtain marketing approval. Our business operations and any current or future arrangements with third-party payors, healthcare providers and physicians may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we develop, market, sell and distribute any drugs for which we obtain marketing approval. In the U.S., these laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, false claims, physician transparency, and patient data privacy and security laws and regulations, including but not limited to those described below.

44

In addition, pharmaceutical manufacturers may also be subject to U.S. federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws and regulations, which broadly regulate marketplace activities and that potentially harm consumers.

The distribution of drugs and biological 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 full scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform. Federal and state enforcement bodies have continued to increase 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. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other related governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, disgorgement, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, reputational harm, additional oversight and reporting obligations if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar settlement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to similar actions, penalties and sanctions. 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 attention from its business.

U.S. Coverage and Reimbursement

In the U.S. and markets in other countries, patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Thus, even if a product candidate is approved, sales of the product will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors, including government health programs in the U.S. such as Medicare and Medicaid, commercial health insurers and managed care organizations, provide coverage, and establish adequate reimbursement levels for, the product. In the U.S., no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists among third-party payors. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor. 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 or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged, examining the medical necessity, and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products and services and imposing controls to manage costs. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the approved products for a particular indication.

45

In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, a company may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable regulatory approvals. Factors payors consider in determining reimbursement are based on whether the product is a covered benefit under its health plan; safe, effective and medically necessary; appropriate for the specific patient; cost-effective; and neither experimental nor investigational. Additionally, companies may also need to provide discounts to purchasers, private health plans or government healthcare programs. Nonetheless, product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost effective. A decision by a third-party payor not to cover a product could reduce physician utilization once the product is approved and have a material adverse effect on sales, our operations and financial condition. Additionally, a third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage and reimbursement for the product, and the level of coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor.

The containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal, state and foreign governments, and the prices of products have been a focus in this effort. Governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit a company’s revenue generated from the sale of any approved products. Coverage policies and third-party payor reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which a company or its collaborators receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

Healthcare Reform

In the U.S. and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and likely will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system directed at broadening the availability of healthcare, improving the quality of healthcare, and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. For example, in 2010, the U.S. enacted the ACA, which, among other things, subjected biologic products to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars; addressed 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; increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by most manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program; extended the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program to utilization of prescriptions of individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations; subjected manufacturers to new annual fees and taxes for certain branded prescription drugs; created a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 70% point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D; and provided incentives to programs that increase the federal government’s comparative effectiveness research.

Since its enactment, there have been numerous judicial, administrative, executive, and legislative challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future. Various portions of the ACA are currently undergoing legal and constitutional challenges in the U.S. Supreme Court, and members of Congress have introduced several pieces of legislation aimed at significantly revising or repealing the ACA. A case that challenges the constitutionality of the ACA, California v. Texas, was argued before the U.S Supreme Court in November 2020. In June 2021, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the ACA. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's ruling, we cannot say for certain whether there will be future challenges to the ACA or what impact, if any, such challenges may have on our business. The implementation of the ACA is ongoing, the law appears likely to continue the downward pressure on pharmaceutical pricing, especially under the Medicare Drug Rebate Program, and may also increase our regulatory burdens and operating costs. Litigation and legislation related to the ACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the U.S. since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, included aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2030 unless additional Congressional action is taken. In January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

46

Moreover, payment methodologies may be subject to changes in healthcare legislation and regulatory initiatives. For example, in the U.S., CMS may develop new payment and delivery models, such as bundled payment models. In addition, recently there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their commercial products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted state and federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for pharmaceutical products. On March 10, 2020, the Trump administration sent “principles” for drug pricing to Congress, calling for legislation that would, among other things, cap Medicare Part D beneficiary out-of-pocket pharmacy expenses, provide an option to cap Medicare Part D beneficiary monthly out-of-pocket expenses, and place limits on pharmaceutical price increases. Further, the Trump administration previously released a “Blueprint” to lower drug prices and reduce out-of-pocket costs of drugs that contained proposals to increase drug manufacturer competition, increase the negotiating power of certain federal healthcare programs, incentivize manufacturers to lower the list price of their products, and reduce the out-of-pocket costs of drug products paid by consumers. HHS has already implemented certain measures. For example, in May 2019, CMS issued a final rule to allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option of using step therapy, a type of prior authorization, for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020. This final rule codified CMS’s policy change that was effective January 1, 2019. However, it is unclear whether the Biden administration will challenge, reverse, revoke or otherwise modify these executive and administrative actions. In addition, individual states in the U.S. have also increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In addition, it is possible that additional governmental action is taken to address the COVID-19 pandemic.

Outside the U.S., ensuring coverage and adequate payment for a product also involves challenges. Pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to government control in many countries. Pricing negotiations with government authorities can extend well beyond the receipt of regulatory approval for a product and may require a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of a product to other available therapies. The conduct of such a clinical trial could be expensive and result in delays in commercialization.

In the European Union (the "EU"), pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies or so-called health technology assessments, in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. For example, the EU provides options for its member states to restrict the range of products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. EU member states may approve a specific price for a product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the Company placing the product on the market. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for products but monitor and control prescription volumes and issue guidance on prescribing criteria to physicians, having an effect on restricting prescriptions or usage. Recently, many countries in the EU have increased the amount of discounts required on pharmaceuticals and these efforts could continue as countries attempt to manage healthcare expenditures, especially in light of the severe fiscal and debt crises experienced by many countries in the EU. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription products, has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various EU member states, and parallel trade, i.e., arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states, can further reduce prices. 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 products, if approved in those countries.

Compliance with Other Federal and State Laws or Requirements; Changing Legal Requirements

If any products that we may develop are made available in the U.S. to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule of the U.S. General Services Administration, additional laws and requirements apply. Products must meet applicable child-resistant packaging requirements under the U.S. Poison Prevention Packaging Act. Manufacturing, labeling, packaging, distribution, sales, promotion and other activities also are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws, among other requirements to we may be subject.

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.

47

The failure to comply with any of these laws or regulatory requirements subjects firms to possible legal or regulatory action. Depending on the circumstances, failure to meet applicable regulatory requirements can result in criminal prosecution, fines or other penalties, injunctions, exclusion from federal healthcare programs, requests for recall, seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, denial or withdrawal of product approvals, relabeling or repackaging, or refusal to allow a firm to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts. Any claim or action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. Prohibitions or restrictions on marketing, sales or withdrawal of future products marketed by us could materially affect our business in an adverse way.

Changes in regulations, statutes or the interpretation of existing regulations could impact our business in the future by requiring, for example: (i) changes to our manufacturing arrangements; (ii) additions or modifications to product labeling or packaging; (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.

European Drug Development

In the EU, our future products also may be subject to extensive regulatory requirements. As in the U.S., medicinal products can be marketed only if a marketing authorization from the competent regulatory agencies has been obtained.

Similar to the U.S., the various phases of preclinical and clinical research in the EU are subject to significant regulatory controls. Although the EU Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC (the "Clinical Trials Directive") sought to harmonize the EU clinical trials regulatory framework, setting out common rules for the control and authorization of clinical trials in the EU, the EU member states interpreted and applied the provisions of the Clinical Trials Directive differently. This led to significant variations in the EU member state regimes. Under the regime provided by the Clinical Trials Directive, before a clinical trial could be initiated it had to be approved in each of the EU member states where the trial was to be conducted by two distinct bodies: the National Competent Authority (the "NCA"), and one or more Ethics Committees (the "ECs"). All suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions to the investigated drug that occurred during the clinical trial had to be reported to the NCA and ECs of the EU member state where they occurred.

The EU clinical trials legislation currently is undergoing a transition process mainly aimed at harmonizing and streamlining clinical-trial authorization (“CTA”), simplifying adverse-event reporting procedures, improving the supervision of clinical trials and increasing their transparency. In January 2022, the Clinical Trials Regulation EU No 536/2014 (the "Clinical Trials Regulation") entered into application and repealed the Clinical Trials Directive. The Clinical Trials Regulation is directly applicable in all EU member states (and so did not require national implementing legislation in each EU member state), and simplifies and streamlines the approval of clinical studies in the EU, for instance by providing for a streamlined application procedure for CTAs via a single point known as the Clinical Trials Information System (“CTIS”). The Clinical Trials Regulation foresees a three-year transition period. As of January 31, 2023, all new CTA applications must use CTIS and be made pursuant to the Clinical Trials Regulation. From January 31, 2025 and onwards, any trials approved under the Clinical Trial Directive which are still ongoing will need to comply with the Clinical Trials Regulation and be recorded in CTIS.

European Drug Marketing

Much like the Anti-Kickback Statue prohibition in the U.S., 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 EU. The provision of benefits or advantages to induce or reward improper performance generally is governed by the national anti-bribery laws of EU member states, and the Bribery Act 2010 in the UK infringement of these laws could result in substantial fines and imprisonment. EU Directive 2001/83/EC, which governs medicinal products for human use, further provides that, where medicinal products are being promoted to persons qualified to prescribe or supply them, no gifts, pecuniary advantages or benefits in kind may be supplied, offered or promised to such persons unless they are inexpensive and relevant to the practice of medicine or pharmacy. This provision has been transposed into the UK Human Medicines Regulations 2012 and so remains applicable in the UK despite its departure from the EU.

In the EU and UK, the statutory regimes applicable to the advertising of medicinal products are supplemented by the self-regulatory regime governed by the industry’s codes of practice developed by trade organizations. Such codes of practice are only binding on companies which are members of the relevant trade organization. However, since they represent the best practice, many non-members choose to abide by these codes of practices as well. These codes of practice require payments made to physicians to be publicly disclosed. In addition, as a matter of law, payments made to physicians in certain EU member states, such as France, must be publicly disclosed. Moreover, agreements with physicians often must be the subject of prior notification and approval by the physician’s employer, his or her competent professional organization and/or the regulatory authorities of the individual EU member states. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment.

48

European Drug Review and Approval

In the European Economic Area (the "EEA"), which is comprised of the member states of the EU together with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, medicinal products can only be commercialized after obtaining a marketing authorization ("MA"). There are two types of marketing authorizations.

Under the procedures described above, before granting the MA, the EMA or the NCAs of the EEA member states make an assessment of the risk-benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy.

Now that the UK (which comprises Great Britain and Northern Ireland) has left the EU, Great Britain will no longer be covered by centralized MAs (under the Northern Ireland Protocol, centralized MAs will continue to be recognized in Northern Ireland). All medicinal products with a current centralized MA were automatically converted to Great Britain MAs on January 1, 2021. For a period of three years from January 1, 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (the "MHRA"), the UK medicines and medical devices regulator, may rely on a decision taken by the European Commission on the approval of a new MA in the centralized procedure, in order to more quickly grant a new Great Britain MA. A separate application will, however, still be required.

49

European Data and Marketing Exclusivity

In the EEA, innovative medicinal products (including both small molecules and biological medicinal products) benefit from eight years of data exclusivity grant of an MA and an additional two years of market exclusivity. The data exclusivity prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from cross-referencing the innovator’s preclinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference medicinal product when applying for a generic or biosimilar MA until the data exclusivity period has expired. During the additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic or biosimilar MA can be submitted, and the innovator’s pre-clinical and clinical data can be cross-referenced, but no generic or biosimilar product can be marketed until the expiration of the market exclusivity period. The overall ten-year period will be extended to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the MA holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are determined to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with currently approved therapies. The UK domestic law follows the same formula of regulatory data and market exclusivity.

European Orphan Designation and Exclusivity

In the EEA, the EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products grants orphan drug designation to promote the development of products that are intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions which either affect not more than 5 in 10,000 persons in the EU, or where it is unlikely that the development of the medicine would generate sufficient return to justify the necessary investment in its development. In each case, no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment must have been authorized (or, if such a method exists, the product in question would be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition).

In the EEA, orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and ten years of market exclusivity is granted following MA grant for the orphan product. This period may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the orphan drug designation criteria are no longer met, including where it is shown that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. During the period of market exclusivity, MA may only be granted to a “similar medicinal product” for the same therapeutic indication if: (i) a second applicant can establish that its product, although similar to the authorized product, is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior; (ii) the MA holder for the authorized product consents to a second orphan medicinal product application; or (iii) the MA holder for the authorized product cannot supply enough orphan medicinal product. A “similar medicinal product” is defined as a medicinal product containing a similar active substance or substances as contained in an authorized orphan medicinal product, and which is intended for the same therapeutic indication. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an application for marketing approval. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

The UK domestic law has adopted the same system for granting orphan exclusivity. However, there is no pre-marketing authorization orphan designation in the UK.

European Pediatric Investigation Plan

In the EEA, companies developing a new medicinal product must agree upon a pediatric investigation plan ("PIP"), with the EMA’s Pediatric Committee (the "PDCO"), and must conduct pediatric clinical trials in accordance with that PIP, unless a waiver applies. The PIP sets out the timing and measures proposed to generate data to support a pediatric indication of the drug for which MA is being sought. The PDCO can grant a deferral of the obligation to implement some or all of the measures of the PIP until there are sufficient data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the product in adults. Further, the obligation to provide pediatric clinical trial data can be waived by the PDCO when this data is not needed or appropriate because the product is likely to be ineffective or unsafe in children, the disease or condition for which the product is intended occurs only in adult populations, or when the product does not represent a significant therapeutic benefit over existing treatments for pediatric patients. Products that are granted a MA with the results of the pediatric clinical trials conducted in accordance with the PIP (even where such results are negative) are eligible for six months’ supplementary protection certificate extension (if any is in effect at the time of approval). In the case of orphan medicinal products, a two-year extension of the orphan market exclusivity may be available. This pediatric reward is subject to specific conditions and is not automatically available when data in compliance with the PIP are developed and submitted.

50

Brexit and the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom

In June 2016, the electorate in the UK voted in favor of leaving the EU (commonly referred to as “Brexit”). Thereafter, in March 2017, the country formally notified the EU of its intention to withdraw pursuant to Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, and the UK formally left the EU on January 31, 2020. A transition period began on February 1, 2020, during which EU pharmaceutical legislation remained applicable to the UK. When the transition period expired on December 31, 2020, the UK became a “third country” for the purposes of EU law. Since the UK had already implemented the EU pharmaceutical legislation into its domestic legislation through the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (as amended), immediate changes were made to this legislation to reflect the UK’s new status. Article 5(4) of Annex 2 to the Northern Ireland Protocol contained in the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community requires certain aspects of EU pharmaceutical law to be applied in Northern Ireland following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.

On May 1, 2021, the EU and UK trade and cooperation agreement (“TCA”) entered into application. The TCA includes specific provisions concerning pharmaceuticals, which include the mutual recognition of the outcomes of GMP inspections. Applicants and MA holders may submit GMP certificates issued by the MHRA for sites located outside the EU/EEA as supporting information for EU regulatory submissions. However, the TCA does not foresee wholesale mutual recognition of UK and EU pharmaceutical regulations. The regulatory regime in Great Britain currently broadly aligns with EU regulations. However, it is possible that these regimes may diverge in the future.

European Data Collection

The collection and use of personal health data in the EEA is governed by the General Data Protection Regulation (the "GDPR"), which became effective May 25, 2018. The GDPR applies to any company established in the EEA and to companies established outside the EEA that process personal data in connection with the offering of goods or services to data subjects in the EU or the monitoring of the behavior of data subjects in the EU. The GDPR enhances data protection obligations for data controllers of personal data, including stringent requirements relating to the consent of data subjects, expanded disclosures about how personal data is used, requirements to conduct privacy impact assessments for “high risk” processing, limitations on retention of personal data, special provisions for “sensitive information” including health and genetic information of data subjects, mandatory data breach notification and “privacy by design” requirements, and direct obligations on service providers acting as data processors. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data outside of the EEA to countries that do not ensure an adequate level of protection, like the U.S. Failure to comply with the requirements of the GDPR and the related national data protection laws of the EEA member states may result in fines up to 20 million euros or 4% of a company’s global annual revenues for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher. Moreover, the GDPR grants data subjects the right to request deletion of personal information in certain circumstances and to claim material and non-material damages resulting from infringement of the GDPR. Given the breadth and depth of changes in data protection obligations, maintaining compliance with the GDPR will require significant time, resources and expense, and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms ensuring compliance with the new data protection rules. This may be onerous and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Corporate Information

We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware in September 2016. Our principal executive offices are located at One Main Street, Suite 1350, Cambridge, MA 02142 and our telephone number is (617) 410-4650.

We use various trademarks and trade names in our business, including, without limitation, our corporate name and logo. All other trademarks or trade names referred to in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are the property of their respective owners. Solely for convenience, the trademarks and trade names in this Annual Report on Form 10-K may be referred to without the ® and ™ symbols, but such references should not be construed as any indicator that their respective owners will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, their rights thereto. We do not intend our use or display of other companies’ trademarks and trade names to imply a relationship with, or endorsement or sponsorship of us by, any other companies.

We are an “emerging growth company” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012. We will remain an emerging growth company until the earlier of: (i) the last day of the fiscal year (a) following the fifth anniversary of the completion of the IPO, (b) in which we have total annual gross revenue of at least $1.235 billion, or (c) in which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer, which means the market value of our common stock that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $700 million as of the prior June 30th, and (ii) the date on which we have issued more than $1 billion in non-convertible debt during the prior three-year period.

51

Human Capital Resources

As of December 31, 2022, we had 62 full-time employees and two consultants. Nineteen of our employees have M.D. or Ph.D. degrees. Within our workforce, 35 employees are engaged in research and development and 27 are engaged in business development, finance, legal, and general management and administration. Four of the ten members of our management executive team are women. Across our broader population, approximately 60% of full-time employees are women. Our management executive team places significant focus and attention on matters concerning our human capital assets - particularly the diversity of our workforce and their capability development.

Our office space is in Greater Boston, which we believe provides access to a vibrant biotech and pharmaceutical talent pool. We believe that employee compensation should be both competitive and equitable. We have programs in place to attract and retain talent, including stock-based compensation and cash performance awards. We also have a performance management and talent development process in which managers provide regular feedback and coaching to develop employees. We believe that open and honest communication among team members, managers and leadership fosters a work environment where everyone can participate, develop and thrive. None of our employees are represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

Available Information

Our corporate website address is https://www.cullinanoncology.com. Information contained on or accessible through our website is not a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and the inclusion of our website address in this Annual Report on Form 10-K is as an inactive textual reference only.

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

52

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

The following information should be read in conjunction with the other information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our consolidated financial statements and related notes appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The occurrence of any of the events or developments described below could harm our business, financial condition or future results, and such risk factors may not be the only risks we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently believe to be immaterial also may adversely affect our business, financial condition or future results. See “Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Risks Related to the Development of Our Product Candidates

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

Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of our product candidates, including zipalertinib (CLN-081/TAS6417), CLN-049, CLN-619, and CLN-418, we must demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our investigational product candidates for use in each target indication through lengthy, complex, and expensive preclinical studies and clinical trials. If the results of our ongoing or future preclinical studies and clinical trials are inconclusive with respect to the safety and efficacy of our product candidates, if we do not meet the clinical endpoints with statistical and clinically meaningful significance, or if there are safety concerns associated with our product candidates, we may be prevented or delayed in obtaining marketing approval for such product candidates. In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety or efficacy results between different preclinical studies and clinical trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial procedures set forth in protocols, differences in the size and type of the patient populations, changes in and adherence to the clinical trial protocols and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants.

In addition to our ongoing clinical trials of zipalertinib, patients have been, and will likely continue to be, treated with zipalertinib under an expanded access or “compassionate use” program. To the extent the experiences of patients being treated in this program are inconsistent with or less favorable than the results of our ongoing or planned company-sponsored trials with zipalertinib, it may negatively affect perceptions of zipalertinib, our other product candidates, or our business. In addition, the United States ("U.S.") Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA"), or foreign regulatory authorities may require us to obtain and submit additional clinical data due to these inconsistent or unfavorable results, which could delay clinical development or marketing approval of zipalertinib or potentially our other product candidates.

Our approach to the identification, discovery, and development of targeted oncology product candidates may never lead to marketable products.

The scientific evidence to support the feasibility of developing product candidates based on our discoveries to date is both preliminary and limited. The patient populations for certain of our product candidates are limited to those with specific target mutations, and we will need to screen and identify these patients with the targeted mutations. Successful identification of patients is dependent on several factors, including achieving certainty as to how specific genetic alterations and larger classes of mutations, such as epidermal growth factor receptor ("EGFR") exon 20 insertion mutations, respond to our product candidates, and developing companion diagnostics to identify such genetic alterations. Furthermore, even if we are successful in identifying patients, we cannot be certain that the resulting patient populations for each mutation or class of mutations will be large enough to allow us to successfully obtain indications for each mutation type and to commercialize our products and achieve profitability. The FDA and other regulatory authorities may not agree with our approach to seek labeling for groups of related mutations, rather than individual mutations, and may require us to conduct additional trials and obtain separate approvals for each individual mutation, which may further affect our ability to successfully commercialize our products, if approved. In addition, even if our approach is successful in showing clinical benefit for tumors harboring certain targeted mutations, we may never successfully identify additional oncogenic mutations. Therefore, we do not know if our approach of treating patients with targeted oncology therapies will be successful, and if our approach is unsuccessful, our business will suffer.

53

Preclinical and clinical development involves a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome, and results of earlier studies and trials may not be predictive of future preclinical studies or clinical trial results. If our preclinical studies and clinical trials are not sufficient to support regulatory approval of any of our product candidates, we may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development of such product candidate.

Our preclinical studies and future clinical trials may not be successful. It is impossible to predict when or if any of our product candidates will prove effective and safe in humans or will receive regulatory approval. Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of any product candidate, we must complete preclinical studies and then conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates in humans. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing. The outcome of preclinical development testing and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later clinical trials, and interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in later stage clinical trials even after achieving promising results in earlier stage clinical trials. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their product candidates.

Additionally, some of the clinical trials we conduct may be open-label in study design and may be conducted at a limited number of clinical sites on a limited number of patients. An “open-label” clinical trial is one where both the patient and investigator know whether the patient is receiving the investigational product candidate or either an existing approved drug or placebo. Most typically, open-label clinical trials test only the investigational product candidate and sometimes may do so at different dose levels. Open-label clinical trials are subject to various limitations that may exaggerate any therapeutic effect, as patients in open-label clinical trials are aware when they are receiving treatment. Open-label clinical trials may be subject to a “patient bias” where patients perceive their symptoms to have improved merely due to their awareness of receiving an experimental treatment. Moreover, patients selected for early clinical studies often include the most severe sufferers and their symptoms may have been bound to improve notwithstanding the new treatment. In addition, open-label clinical trials may be subject to an “investigator bias” where those assessing and reviewing the physiological outcomes of the clinical trials are aware of which patients have received treatment and may interpret the information of the treated group more favorably given this knowledge. Given that our Phase 1/2a and pivotal Phase 2b clinical trials of zipalertinib in collaboration with our partners at Taiho Pharmaceutical, Co., Ltd. (“Taiho”) include an open-label dosing design, the results from these clinical trials may not be predictive of future clinical trial results with this or other product candidates for which we conduct an open-label clinical trial when studied in a controlled environment with a placebo or active control.

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

If a sufficient number of our product candidates generally prove to be ineffective, unsafe or commercially unviable, our entire pipeline may have little, if any, value, which would have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We may encounter substantial delays in preclinical and clinical trials, or may not be able to conduct or complete preclinical or clinical trials on the expected timelines, if at all.

We may experience delays in initiating or completing preclinical studies or clinical trials, including as a result of delays in obtaining, or failure to obtain, the FDA’s clearance to initiate clinical trials under future investigational new drug applications ("INDs"). Additionally, we cannot be certain that preclinical studies or clinical trials for our product candidates will not require redesign, enroll an adequate number of subjects on time, or be completed on schedule, if at all. We may experience numerous adverse or unforeseen events during, or as a result of, preclinical studies and clinical trials that could delay or terminate our trials, or delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval or commercialize our product candidates, including:

54

If we are required to conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials or other testing of our product candidates beyond those that we currently contemplate, if we are unable to successfully complete clinical trials of our product candidates or other testing, if the results of these studies, trials or tests are not positive or are only moderately positive or if there are safety concerns, our business and results of operations may be adversely affected and we may incur significant additional costs.

We could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the IRBs, or ethics committees of the institutions in which such clinical trials are being conducted, by the data safety monitoring board, if any, for such clinical trial or by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Such authorities may suspend, place on clinical hold, or terminate a clinical trial due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical trial protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from the product candidates, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial.

55

We are early in our development efforts and are substantially dependent on our lead product candidates, zipalertinib, CLN-049, CLN-619, and CLN-418. If we are unable to advance these or any of our other product candidates through clinical development, or to obtain regulatory approval and ultimately commercialize any such product candidates, either by ourselves or with or by third parties or if we experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

We are early in our development efforts. Our lead program, zipalertinib, is in a pivotal Phase 2b clinical trial in collaboration with our partners at Taiho. Additionally, our product candidates CLN-049, CLN-619, and CLN-418 each are in Phase 1 clinical trials. Our ability to generate product revenues, which we do not expect will occur for many years, if ever, will depend heavily on the successful clinical development and eventual commercialization of zipalertinib, CLN-049, CLN-619, and CLN-418 and our other product candidates, if approved. The success of our product candidates will depend on several factors, including the following:

If we do not succeed in one or more of these factors in a timely manner or at all, we could experience significant delays in our ability to successfully commercialize product candidates, or be unable to commercialize product candidates at all. If we are unable to advance our preclinical-stage product candidates to clinical development, successfully complete clinical trials for our product candidates, obtain regulatory approval, and ultimately commercialize our product candidates, our business will be materially harmed.

56

There is no guarantee that the results obtained in current preclinical studies or our ongoing clinical trials of zipalertinib in EGFR exon 20 insertion mutation non-small-cell lung carcinoma ("NSCLC"), patients, CLN-049 in patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia ("r/r AML"), CLN-619 in patients with solid tumors, or CLN-418 in patients with advanced solid tumors will be sufficient to obtain regulatory approval or marketing authorization for such product candidates. For example, the FDA may require us to complete trials in addition to our ongoing Phase 1/2a clinical trial and pivotal Phase 2b trial for zipalertinib in collaboration with our partners at Taiho prior to granting regulatory approval. Although we believe our product candidates and programs are uncorrelated, negative results in the development process of one product candidate could impact other product candidates or programs. For each of our product candidates, antitumor activity may be different in each of the different tumor types we plan on evaluating in our clinical trials. Even as we build clinical experience with our product candidates, we may need to further discuss or meet with the FDA to agree on the optimal patient population, study design, and size for each trial in order to obtain regulatory approval, any of which may require significant additional resources and delay the timing of our clinical trials and ultimately the approval, if any, of any of our product candidates.

Difficulty in enrolling patients could delay or prevent clinical trials of our product candidates, and ultimately delay or prevent regulatory approval.

Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in clinical trials of our product candidates is critical to our success. The timing of completion of our clinical trials depends in part on the speed at which we can recruit patients to participate in testing our product candidates, and we may experience delays in our clinical trials if we encounter difficulties in enrollment. We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials for our product candidates if we are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials as required by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the U.S., or as needed to provide appropriate statistical power for a given trial. In particular, because we are focused on patients with specific genetic mutations for the development of zipalertinib, our ability to enroll eligible patients may be limited or enrollment may be slower than we anticipate due to the small eligible patient population. For our Phase 1 trial evaluating CLN-049 in r/r AML patients, our ability to enroll eligible patients may be limited or enrollment may be slower than we anticipate due to enrollment criteria and the single ascending dose design.

In addition to the potentially small populations, the eligibility criteria of our planned clinical trials will further limit the pool of available study participants as we require that patients have specific characteristics, such as a certain severity or stage of disease progression, to include them in a study. Additionally, the process of finding eligible patients may prove costly. We also may not be able to identify, recruit, and enroll a sufficient number of patients to complete our clinical studies because of the perceived risks and benefits of the product candidate under study, the availability and efficacy of competing therapies and clinical trials, the proximity and availability of clinical study sites for prospective patients, the availability of genetic sequencing information for patient tumors so that we can identify patients with the targeted genetic mutations, and the patient referral practices of physicians. If patients are unwilling to participate in our studies for any reason, the timeline for recruiting patients, conducting studies, and obtaining regulatory approval of potential products may be delayed.

The enrollment of patients further depends on many factors, including:

57

In addition, our clinical trials will compete with other clinical trials for product candidates that are in the same therapeutic areas as our product candidates, and this competition will reduce the number and types of patients available to us because some patients who might have opted to enroll in our clinical trials may instead opt to enroll in a clinical trial being conducted by one of our competitors. Since the number of qualified clinical investigators is limited, we expect to conduct some of our clinical trials at the same clinical trial sites that some of our competitors use, which will reduce the number of patients who are available for our clinical trials at such clinical trial sites. Moreover, because certain of our product candidates represent a departure from more commonly used methods for cancer treatment and because certain of our product candidates have not been tested in humans before, potential patients and their doctors may be inclined to use conventional therapies, such as chemotherapy, rather than enroll patients in any future clinical trial of our product candidates.

If we experience delays in the completion of, or termination of, any clinical trial of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of our product candidates will be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenue from any of these product candidates could be delayed or prevented.

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

From time to time, we may publicly disclose preliminary or topline data from our preclinical studies and clinical trials, which is based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change following a more comprehensive review of the data related to the particular study or trial. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations, and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. As a result, the topline or preliminary results that we report may differ from future results of the same studies, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Topline data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. From time to time, we may also disclose interim data from our clinical trials. Interim data from clinical trials are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment and treatment continues and more patient data become available or as patients from our clinical trials continue other treatments for their disease. Adverse differences between preliminary or interim data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects and our ability to obtain approval for, and commercialize, our product candidates may be harmed. Further, disclosure of interim data by us or by our competitors could result in volatility in the price of our common stock.

We may not be able to file INDs or IND amendments to commence additional clinical trials on the timelines we expect, and even if we are able to, the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities may not permit us to proceed.

We have submitted INDs for zipalertinib, CLN-049, CLN-619 and CLN-978, which are all currently in effect. In addition, we submitted an IND for CLN-617 in February 2023. However, we may not be able to file future INDs for our other product candidates on the timelines we expect. Additionally, we may experience manufacturing delays or other delays with IND-enabling studies, or the FDA or other regulatory authorities may require additional preclinical studies that we did not anticipate. Moreover, we cannot be sure that submission of an IND will result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that result in a decision by us, by IRBs or independent ethics committees, or by the FDA or other regulatory authorities to suspend or terminate clinical trials, including as a result of a clinical hold. Additionally, even if the FDA or other regulatory authorities agree with the design and implementation of the clinical trials set forth in an IND, we cannot guarantee that they will not change their requirements or expectations in the future. These considerations also apply to new clinical trials we may submit as amendments to existing INDs or to a new IND. Any failure to file INDs on the timelines we expect or to obtain regulatory approvals for our trials may prevent us from completing our clinical trials or commercializing our products on a timely basis, if at all.

We intend to develop CLN-619 and potentially other product candidates in combination with other therapies, which exposes us to additional risks.

We intend to develop CLN-619 and potentially other product candidates in combination with one or more approved or unapproved therapies to treat cancer or other diseases. Even if any product candidate we develop were to receive marketing approval for use in combination with other approved therapies, the FDA, the European Manufacturing Agency (the "EMA"), or comparable foreign regulatory authorities outside of the U.S. could still revoke approval of the therapy used in combination with our product. If the therapies used in combination with our product candidates are replaced as the standard of care for the indications, we choose for any of our product candidates, the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to conduct additional clinical trials. The occurrence of any of these risks could result in our own products, if approved, being removed from the market or being less successful commercially.

58

Further, we will not be able to market and sell any product candidate we develop in combination with an unapproved cancer therapy for a combination indication if that unapproved therapy does not ultimately obtain marketing approval either alone or in combination with our product. In addition, unapproved cancer therapies face the same risks described with respect to our product candidates currently in development and clinical trials, including the potential for serious adverse effects, delay in their clinical trials and lack of FDA approval.

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

If we are unable to successfully validate, develop, and obtain regulatory approval for any required companion diagnostic tests for our product candidates or experience significant delays in doing so, we may fail to obtain approval or may not realize the full commercial potential of these product candidates.

In connection with the clinical development of our product candidates for certain indications, we need to develop or obtain access to in vitro companion diagnostic tests to identify patient subsets within a disease category who may derive benefit from our product candidates, as we are targeting certain genetically defined populations for our treatments. Such companion diagnostics may be used during our clinical trials and may be required in connection with the FDA approval of our product candidates. To be successful, we or our collaborators will need to address a number of scientific, technical, regulatory, and logistical challenges. Companion diagnostics are subject to regulation by the FDA, the EMA, and other regulatory authorities as medical devices and require separate regulatory approval prior to commercialization.

Given our limited experience in developing and commercializing diagnostics, we may rely on third parties for the design, development, and manufacture of companion diagnostic tests for our product candidates that may require such tests. If we enter into such collaborative agreements, we will be dependent on the sustained cooperation and effort of our future collaborators in developing and obtaining approval for these companion diagnostics. We and our future collaborators may encounter difficulties in developing and obtaining approval for the companion diagnostics, including issues relating to selectivity/specificity, analytical validation, reproducibility, or clinical validation of companion diagnostics. We and our future collaborators also may encounter difficulties in developing, obtaining regulatory approval for, manufacturing, and commercializing companion diagnostics similar to those we face with respect to our product candidates themselves, including issues with achieving regulatory clearance or approval, production of sufficient quantities at commercial scale and with appropriate quality standards, and in gaining market acceptance. If we are unable to successfully develop companion diagnostics for these product candidates, or experience delays in doing so, the development of these therapeutic product candidates may be adversely affected or these product candidates may not obtain marketing approval or such approval may be delayed, and we may not realize the full commercial potential of any of these product candidates that obtain marketing approval. As a result, our business, results of operations, and financial condition could be materially harmed. In addition, a diagnostic company with whom we contract may decide to discontinue developing, selling or manufacturing the companion diagnostic test that we anticipate using in connection with development and commercialization of our product candidates or our relationship with such diagnostic company may otherwise terminate. We may not be able to enter into arrangements with another diagnostic company to obtain supplies of an alternative diagnostic test for use in connection with the development and commercialization of our product candidates or do so on commercially reasonable terms, which could adversely affect and/or delay the development or commercialization of our product candidates.

Our product candidates may cause undesirable side effects or have other properties that delay or prevent their regulatory approval, limit their commercial potential, or result in significant negative consequences following any potential marketing approval.

Our product candidates may cause undesirable side effects. Additionally, the administration process or related procedures also can cause adverse side effects. Adverse events that occur in our trials may cause us, or cause the FDA, the EMA or other regulatory authorities, or IRBs to order us to halt, delay or amend preclinical development or clinical development of our product candidates and could result in more restrictive labelling or the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. Even if serious adverse events are unrelated to study treatment, such occurrences could affect patient enrollment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial. In addition, if any of our product candidates are tested or used in combination with other drugs, such as our plans to potentially use CLN-619 in combination with other agents, these combinations may have additional side effects, which could be more severe than those caused by either therapy alone.

Furthermore, 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 or those of our competitors may only be uncovered when a significantly larger number of patients have been exposed to the drug. For example, while we believe that zipalertinib has demonstrated a manageable tolerability profile thus far, there can be no assurance that it or any of our other product candidates will not cause more severe side effects in a greater proportion of patients.

59

Moreover, if we elect, or are required, to delay, suspend or terminate any clinical trial of any of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of such product candidates or our other product candidates may be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenues from any of these product candidates may be delayed or eliminated. Any of these occurrences may harm our ability to develop other product candidates and may harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects significantly.

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 or biologics) 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.

Since the number of patients that have been and will be dosed in our ongoing clinical trials is small, the results from such clinical trials, once completed, may be less reliable than results achieved in larger clinical trials, which may hinder our efforts to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates.

The preliminary results of clinical trials with smaller sample sizes can be disproportionately influenced by various biases associated with the conduct of small clinical trials, such as the potential failure of the smaller sample size to accurately depict the characteristics of the broader patient population, which limits the ability to generalize the results across a broader community, thus making the clinical trial results less reliable than clinical trials with a larger number of patients. As a result, there may be less certainty that such product candidates would achieve a statistically significant effect in any future clinical trials. Further, the FDA or other regulatory authorities may require us to conduct additional and larger trials than we may plan to support applications for marketing authorization. If we conduct any future clinical trials of zipalertinib, CLN-049, CLN-619, or CLN-418 or of our other product candidates, we may not achieve a positive or statistically significant result or the same level of statistical significance, if any, that we might have anticipated based on prior results.

60

We are currently conducting and may in the future conduct clinical trials for product candidates outside the U.S., and the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not accept data from such trials.

We are evaluating zipalertinib in a Phase 1/2a trial and a pivotal Phase 2b trial in collaboration with our partners at Taiho, CLN-619 in a Phase 1 clinical trial, and CLN-418 in a Phase 1 clinical trial that include centers located inside and outside of the U.S. We may also in the future choose to conduct one or more additional clinical trials outside the U.S., including in Europe and Australia. The acceptance of study data from clinical trials conducted outside the U.S. or another jurisdiction by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may be subject to certain conditions or may not be accepted at all. If data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the basis for marketing approval in the U.S., the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (i) the data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice, and (ii) the trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence and pursuant to good clinical practice ("GCP") regulations. Additionally, the FDA’s clinical trial requirements, including sufficient size of patient populations and statistical powering, must be met. Many foreign regulatory authorities have similar approval requirements. In addition, foreign trials are subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted. We would need to conduct additional trials if the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority does not accept data from trials conducted outside of the U.S. or the applicable foreign jurisdiction, which could be costly and time-consuming, and which may result in product candidates that we may develop not receiving approval for commercialization in the U.S. or any such foreign jurisdiction.

Risks Related to Our Financial Condition and Capital Requirements

Our limited operating history may make it difficult for you to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability.

We began substantive operations in 2017. Our operations to date have been limited to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital for us and our subsidiaries, filing patent applications, identifying and acquiring and investing in potential product candidates, undertaking clinical trials, building our intellectual property portfolio, and establishing arrangements and collaborating with third parties for identification, discovery and research activities, preclinical studies, clinical trials, and the manufacture of initial quantities of our product candidates and component materials. We have not yet demonstrated our ability to successfully conduct late-stage clinical trials, complete any clinical trials, obtain marketing approvals, manufacture a commercial-scale product or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales, marketing, and distribution activities necessary for successful product commercialization.

Consequently, any predictions you make about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history.

We have incurred significant losses since inception, and we expect to incur losses over the next several years and may not be able to achieve or sustain revenues or profitability in the future.

Investment in biopharmaceutical product development is a highly speculative undertaking and entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate adequate efficacy or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval, and become commercially viable. We are still in the early stages of development of our product candidates. We have no products approved for commercial sale and have not generated any revenue from product sales to date, and we continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations. We have financed our operations primarily through the sale of equity securities.

We have incurred significant net losses in each period since we began substantive operations. For 2022 and 2021, we reported net income of $109.2 million and a net loss of $67.5 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2022, we had an accumulated deficit of $47.7 million. We expect to continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, and we expect these losses to increase substantially if and as we:

61

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with developing pharmaceutical product candidates, we are unable to predict the extent of any future losses or when we will become profitable, if at all. Even if we succeed in commercializing one or more of our product candidates, we will continue to incur substantial research and development and other expenditures to develop and seek regulatory approval for additional product candidates or additional indications. We may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays, and other unknown factors that may adversely affect our business. The size of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of future growth of our expenses and our ability to generate revenue. Our prior losses and expected future losses have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital.

We have not generated any revenue from the sale of our product candidates and may never be profitable.

Our ability to become profitable depends upon our ability to generate revenue. Other than our previous licensing agreement with Zai Lab, we have not generated any other license or collaboration revenue or any sales revenue from any of our product candidates. We do not expect to generate significant sales revenue or commercial revenue from the sale or license of one or more of our preclinical programs or product candidates unless or until we successfully complete clinical development and obtain regulatory approval of, and then successfully commercialize, at least one of our product candidates or, alternatively, enter into agreements with third parties for the purchase, collaboration, or license of one of our product candidates. We are currently advancing zipalertinib (pursuant to the co-development agreement with Taiho), CLN-049, CLN-619, and CLN-418 in clinical development, in addition to our other product candidates that are in the preclinical stages of development and will require additional preclinical studies. All of our product candidates will require additional clinical development, regulatory review and approval, substantial investment, access to sufficient commercial manufacturing capacity, and significant marketing efforts before we can generate any revenue from product sales. Our ability to generate revenue depends on a number of factors, including, but not limited to:

62

Many of the factors listed above are beyond our control and could cause us to experience significant delays or prevent us from obtaining regulatory approvals or commercializing our product candidates. Even if we are able to commercialize our product candidates, we may not achieve profitability soon after generating product sales, if ever. If we are unable to generate sufficient revenue through the commercial sale of our product candidates or any future product candidates, or from agreements with third parties for the purchase, collaboration, or license of one or more of our product candidates, we may be unable to continue operations without continued funding.

We will require substantial additional funding to develop and commercialize our product candidates and identify and invest in new product candidates. If we are unable to raise capital when needed, we would be compelled to delay, reduce, or eliminate our product development programs or other operations.

The development of pharmaceutical products is capital intensive. We are currently advancing zipalertinib (pursuant to the co-development agreement with Taiho), CLN-049, CLN-619, and CLN-418 in clinical development and making further investments in our preclinical programs. We expect our expenses to increase in parallel with our ongoing activities, as described above under the risk factor entitled “We have incurred significant losses since inception, and we expect to incur losses over the next several years and may not be able to achieve or sustain revenues or profitability in the future.” Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations, which may include raising funding by one or more of our subsidiaries that could dilute our equity interest in the subsidiary. We have estimated our current additional funding needs based on assumptions that may prove to be wrong. Changing circumstances may cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to spend more money than currently expected because of circumstances beyond our control. We cannot be certain that additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenue, we expect to finance our operations through a combination of public or private equity offerings, debt financings, governmental funding, collaborations, strategic partnerships, and alliances, or marketing, distribution, or licensing arrangements with third parties, either by us or by one or more of our subsidiaries. If we or our subsidiaries are unable to raise capital when needed or on attractive terms, we or the applicable subsidiary would be forced to delay, reduce, or eliminate our identification, discovery, and preclinical or clinical development programs, or any future commercialization efforts.

We had cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments of $467.3 million and long-term investments and interest receivable of $82.8 million as of December 31, 2022. We believe that, based upon our current operating plan, our existing capital resources will be sufficient to fund our anticipated operations into 2026. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

63

If we or our subsidiaries engage in acquisitions or strategic partnerships, this may increase our or their capital requirements, dilute our or their stockholders, cause us or them to incur debt or assume contingent liabilities, and subject us or them to other risks.

In June 2022, we sold our equity interest in Cullinan Pearl Corp. ("Cullinan Pearl"), formerly a partially-owned subsidiary of the Company, to Taiho and we entered into a co-development agreement with an affiliate of Taiho to co-develop and, at our option, co-commercialize zipalertinib in the U.S. Pursuant to the terms of the co-development agreement with Taiho, development costs for zipalertinib incurred after the sale of our equity interest in Cullinan Pearl will be shared equally between us and Taiho, with each party receiving 50% of any future pre-tax profits from potential U.S. sales of zipalertinib. In addition, in October and November 2022, we purchased equity interests from Cullinan MICA Corp. ("Cullinan MICA") stockholders and acquired additional shares in a private placement. We currently hold 95% of Cullinan MICA’s outstanding equity. Cullinan MICA owns the intellectual property related to CLN-619.

We intend to engage in various acquisitions and strategic partnerships in the future, including licensing or acquiring products, intellectual property rights, technologies, or businesses, carried out either by us or by one or more of our wholly- or partially-owned subsidiaries, including a newly-formed subsidiary formed for the purpose of such transaction. Any acquisition or strategic partnership, including the co-development agreement with Taiho, may entail numerous risks to us or the applicable subsidiary, including:

If we fail to properly evaluate potential acquisitions, in-licenses, investments or other transactions associated with the creation of new research and development programs or the maintenance of existing ones, we might not achieve the anticipated benefits of any such transaction, we might incur costs in excess of what we anticipate, and management resources and attention might be diverted from other necessary or valuable activities.

Risks Related to Our Corporate Structure

We may not be successful in our efforts to build a pipeline of product candidates with commercial value.

64

A key element of our strategy is to form or seek strategic alliances, create joint ventures or collaborations, or enter into licensing arrangements with third parties for programs, product candidates, technologies or intellectual property that we believe are novel, employ differentiated mechanisms of action, are more advanced in development than competitors, or have a combination of these attributes. We face significant competition in seeking appropriate strategic partners and licensing and acquisition opportunities, and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. We may not be successful in our efforts in building a pipeline of product candidates for the treatment of various cancers through acquisitions, licensing or through internal development or in progressing these product candidates through clinical development. Although we analyze whether we can replicate scientific results observed prior to our acquisition or investment in a product candidate, we may not be successful in doing so after our investment. For example, we may not be successful in identifying additional genetic mutations which are oncogenic and which can be “basketed” into a group that is large enough to present a sufficient commercial opportunity or that is druggable with one chemical compound.

Additionally, we are pursuing additional in-licenses or acquisitions of development-stage assets or programs, which entails additional risk to us. Identifying, selecting, and acquiring promising product candidates requires substantial technical, financial and human resources expertise. Efforts to do so may not result in the actual acquisition or license of a successful product candidate, potentially resulting in a diversion of our management’s time and the expenditure of our resources with no resulting benefit. For example, if we are unable to identify programs that ultimately result in approved products, we may spend material amounts of our capital and other resources evaluating, acquiring, and developing products that ultimately do not provide a return on our investment. We have terminated programs and expect to terminate programs in the future if they do not meet our criteria for advancement.

Our subsidiaries are party to certain agreements that provide our licensors, collaborators, or other shareholders in our subsidiaries with rights that could delay or impact the potential sale of our subsidiaries or could impact the ability of our subsidiaries to sell assets, or enter into strategic alliances, collaborations, or licensing arrangements with other third parties.

Each of our subsidiaries licenses intellectual property from third parties and several have raised capital from third-party investors. These third parties have certain rights that could delay collaboration, licensing or other arrangement with another third party, and the existence of these rights may adversely impact the ability to attract an acquirer or partner. These rights include rights of negotiation and fees payable upon a sale of assets or change of control of a subsidiary that are contained in license agreements, as well as rights such as drag-along rights in agreements with shareholders of the subsidiary.

In addition, our partially-owned subsidiaries Cullinan Florentine Corp. ("Cullinan Florentine"), and Cullinan Amber Corp. ("Cullinan Amber"), will also owe licensors a success fee in the event of a sale or other disposition of the majority of its assets. These fees will reduce the net proceeds we receive from any such sale or disposition of assets.

We have also entered into investor rights and voting agreements with third-party investors, which may delay or impact our ability to sell our equity interests in or the assets of our partially-owned subsidiaries. For example, we would need to comply with certain notice and other provisions, such as a drag-along provision in the event of sale of the subsidiary, which may delay or prevent a specific transaction or make transacting with our subsidiaries and us less attractive to third parties.

We may form additional subsidiaries and enter into similar agreements with future partners or investors, or our subsidiaries may enter into further agreements, that in each case may contain similar provisions or other terms that are not favorable to us.

Our ability to realize value from our subsidiaries may be impacted if we reduce our ownership to a minority interest or otherwise cede control to other investors through contractual agreements or otherwise.

In the event that any of our subsidiaries require additional capital and its respective board of directors authorizes the transaction, our equity interest in our subsidiaries may be further reduced to the extent such additional capital is obtained from third-party investors rather than from us. However, such transactions would still need to be approved by the board of directors of our respective subsidiary over which we maintain full control.

However, if we do not wish to or cannot provide additional capital to any of our subsidiaries, we may approve of an issuance of equity by a subsidiary that dilutes our ownership and may lose control over the subsidiary.

In June 2022, we completed the sale of our equity interest in Cullinan Pearl, formerly a partially-owned subsidiary of the Company, to Taiho for an upfront payment of $275.0 million. We may receive up to an additional $130.0 million upon the achievement of certain regulatory milestones related to zipalertinib. There is no guarantee that these milestones will be achieved or that we will receive any of the additional $130.0 million. In connection with the sale of our equity interest in Cullinan Pearl, we entered into a co-development agreement with Taiho, pursuant to which we and Taiho will co-develop and, at our option, co-commercialize zipalertinib in the U.S. Taiho and us will share the future clinical development costs of zipalertinib equally, and each will receive 50% of any future pre-tax profits from potential U.S. sales of zipalertinib. There is no guarantee that the co-development and co-commercialization will be successful or that we will receive any net profits and we could lose money.

65

A single or limited number of subsidiaries may comprise a large proportion of our value.

A large proportion of our value may at any time reside in one or two of our subsidiaries, including intellectual property rights and the value ascribed to the product candidate or program that it is developing. Our consolidated financial condition and prospects may be materially diminished if the clinical development or potential commercialization prospects of a subsidiary’s product candidate or program or one or more of the intellectual property rights held by a specific subsidiary becomes impaired. Furthermore, a large proportion of our consolidated revenue may at any time be derived from one, or a small number of, licensed technologies, and termination or expiration of licenses to these technologies would likely have a material adverse effect on our consolidated revenue. Any material adverse impact on the value of a particular subsidiary, including its intellectual property rights or the clinical development of its product candidate or program, could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

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

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we must focus on a limited number of research programs and product candidates and on specific indications. As a result, 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 fail to recognize or acquire assets that may be more promising than those we acquire. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future identification, discovery, and preclinical development programs and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable products.

Our reliance on a central team consisting of a limited number of employees presents operational challenges that may adversely affect our business.

As of December 31, 2022, we had 62 full-time employees upon which we rely for various administrative, research and development, and other support services shared among our other operating subsidiaries. We also have two consultants who we rely on for research and development, business development, and other services. While we believe this structure enables us to reduce certain infrastructure costs, the small size of our centralized team may limit our ability to devote adequate personnel, time, and resources to support the operations of all of our subsidiaries, including their research and development activities, and the management of financial, accounting, and reporting matters. Given that our employees and management are primarily incentivized at the parent company level, these employees and management team members may not be sufficiently incentivized to maximize the overall value of our entire organization. If our centralized team fails to provide adequate administrative, research and development, or other services across our entire organization, our business, financial condition, and results of operations could be harmed.

66

Some of our officers and directors currently serve, and in the future may serve, as directors or officers of our subsidiaries, and, as a result, have and may continue to have, fiduciary and other duties to our subsidiaries causing conflicts of interest with respect to their duties to us and their duties to our subsidiaries and in determining how to devote themselves to our affairs and the affairs of our subsidiaries. Our subsidiaries’ partners may also disagree with the sufficiency of resources that we provide to each subsidiary.

Certain of our officers are also directors and/or officers of one or more of our subsidiaries and, as a result, have fiduciary or other duties both to us and our subsidiaries. The conflicts of interest that arise from such duties could interfere with the management of our subsidiaries and their programs and product candidates, or result in disagreements with our subsidiaries’ partners. For example, an individual who is both a director of one of our subsidiaries and a director of Cullinan owes fiduciary duties to the subsidiary and to the Company as a whole, and such individual may encounter circumstances in which his or her decision or action may benefit the subsidiary while having a detrimental impact on the Company, or vice versa, or on another subsidiary, including one for which he or she also serves as a director. Further, our officers and directors who are also officers and directors of our subsidiaries will need to allocate his or her time to responsibilities owed to Cullinan and each of the subsidiaries for which he or she serves as an officer or director, and will make decisions on behalf of one entity that may negatively impact others. In addition, while most of our subsidiaries have waived any interest or expectation of corporate opportunities that is presented to, or acquired, created or developed by, or which otherwise comes into possession of any director or officer who is also a director or officer of Cullinan disputes could arise between us and our subsidiary’s partners regarding a conflict of interest. These partners also may disagree with the amount and quality of resources that our officers and employees devote to the subsidiary they are invested in. Any such disputes or disagreements could distract our management, interfere with our relations with our partners, and take significant time to resolve, which could disrupt the development of our product candidates, delay our potential commercialization efforts, result in increased costs or make it less likely that other third parties will choose to partner with us in the future.

Risks Related to Potential Commercialization

Even if we obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates, the products may not gain market acceptance among physicians, patients, hospitals, cancer treatment centers, and others in the medical community.

The use of targeted oncology medicines as a potential cancer treatment is a recent development and may not become broadly accepted by physicians, patients, hospitals, cancer treatment centers, and others in the medical community. Various factors will influence whether our product candidates are accepted in the market, including:

If our product candidates are licensed but fail to achieve market acceptance among physicians, patients, hospitals, cancer treatment centers or others in the medical community, we will not be able to generate significant revenue.

67

Even if our product candidates achieve market acceptance, we may not be able to maintain that market acceptance over time if new products or technologies are introduced that are more favorably received than our products, are more cost effective or render our products obsolete.

We face substantial competition, which may result in others discovering, developing, or commercializing products before or more successfully than we do.

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by the rapid evolution of technologies and understanding of disease etiology, intense competition, and a strong emphasis on intellectual property. We face, and will continue to face, competition from companies focused on more traditional therapeutic modalities, such as small-molecule inhibitors. We believe that our differentiated business model, approach, scientific capabilities, know-how, and experience provide us with competitive advantages. However, we expect substantial competition from multiple sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical, and existing or emerging biotechnology companies, academic research institutions, governmental agencies, and public and private research institutions worldwide. Many of our competitors, either alone or through collaborations, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals, and marketing approved products than we do. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These companies also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and recruiting patients in clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. As a result, our competitors may discover, develop, license or commercialize products before or more successfully than we do.

Product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. We expect that zipalertinib will compete against small-molecule EGFR inhibitor Exkivity (TAK-788) from Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and EGFR/cMET bispecific antibody Rybrevant from Johnson & Johnson. Zipalertinib may also compete against EGFR inhibitors sunvozertinib from Dizal Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., furmonertinib from ArriVent BioPharma, Inc. and Allist Pharmaceuticals, Inc, ORIC-114 from Oric Pharmaceutical, Inc. (Voronoi, Inc. in mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan), and LNG-451 from Blueprint Medicine Corporation, as well as other molecules in preclinical development. We expect that CLN-049 will compete against bispecifics for the treatment of AML, including those targeting CD3 and CD33 (Amgen Inc. and Amphivena Therapeutics, Inc.), CD123 (Macrogenics, Inc. and Xencor, Inc.), FLT3, and CCL1/CLEC12A (Merus N.V. and Genentech, Inc.). We expect that CLN-619 will compete against cancer therapies targeting MICA/B as a monotherapy and/or in combination with other agents, including: CanCure LLC, Genentech Inc., Novartis International AG and Bristol Myers Squibb Company.

If our product candidates, including zipalertinib, CLN-049, and CLN-619, are approved for their currently proposed target indication, they will likely compete with the competitor products mentioned above and with other products that are currently in development. The key competitive factors affecting the success of all of our product candidates, if approved, are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience, price, the level of generic competition, and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors. Our competitors may obtain patent protection or other intellectual property rights that limit our ability to develop or commercialize our product candidates. The availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors will also significantly affect the pricing and competitiveness of our products. Our competitors may also obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. If our competitors develop and commercialize drugs that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient to administer, are less expensive or with a more favorable label than our product candidates, we could see a reduction or elimination in our commercial opportunity. For additional information regarding our competition, see the section of this Annual Report on Form 10-K titled “Business—Competition.”

68

The insurance coverage and reimbursement status of newly-approved products is uncertain. Our product candidates may become subject to unfavorable pricing regulations, third-party coverage and reimbursement practices, or healthcare reform initiatives, which would harm our business. Failure to obtain or maintain adequate coverage and reimbursement for new or current products could limit our ability to market those products and decrease our ability to generate revenue.

The regulations that govern marketing approvals, pricing, coverage, and reimbursement for new drugs vary widely from country to country. In the U.S., recently enacted legislation may significantly change the approval requirements in ways that could involve additional costs and cause delays in obtaining approvals. 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 product licensing approval is granted. In some foreign markets, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. As a result, we might obtain marketing approval for a product in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay our commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods, and negatively impact the revenue we are able to generate from the sale of the product in that country. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more product candidates, even if any product candidates we may develop obtain marketing approval.

In the U.S. and markets in other countries, patients 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 is critical to new product acceptance. Our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. Government authorities and other third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. The availability of coverage and extent of reimbursement by governmental and private payors is essential for most patients to be able to afford treatments such as gene therapy products. Sales of these or other product candidates that we may identify will depend substantially, both domestically and abroad, on the extent to which the costs of our product candidates will be paid by health maintenance, managed care, pharmacy benefit and similar healthcare management organizations, or reimbursed by government health administration authorities, private health coverage insurers and other third-party payors. If coverage and adequate reimbursement is not available, or is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow us to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize a sufficient return on our investment.

Reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the third-party payor’s determination that use of a product is:

A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Governmental authorities and other third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. In many countries, the prices of medical products are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. In general, the prices of medicines under such systems are substantially lower than in the U.S. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines, but monitor and control company profits. Additional foreign price controls or other changes in pricing regulation could restrict the amount that we are able to charge for our product candidates. Accordingly, in markets outside the U.S., the reimbursement for products may be reduced compared with the U.S. and may be insufficient to generate commercially reasonable revenues and profits.

69

There is also significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the medicine is approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. In the U.S., the principal decisions about reimbursement for new medicines are typically made by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("CMS"), an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS"). CMS decides whether and to what extent a new medicine will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare and private payors tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree. No uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors and coverage and reimbursement levels for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time consuming and costly process that may require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance. It is difficult to predict what CMS will decide with respect to reimbursement for fundamentally novel products such as ours. Reimbursement agencies in Europe may be more conservative than CMS. For example, a number of cancer drugs have been approved for reimbursement in the U.S. and have not been approved for reimbursement in certain European countries. 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. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and profitable payment rates from both government-funded and private payors for any approved products we may develop could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize product candidates, and our overall financial condition.

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 U.S. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and profitable reimbursement rates third-party payors for any approved products that we develop could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize products and our overall financial condition.

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. We cannot be sure that reimbursement will be available for any product candidate that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, the level of reimbursement. Reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. In order to obtain reimbursement, physicians may need to show that patients have superior treatment outcomes with our products compared to standard of care drugs, including lower-priced generic versions of standard of care drugs. We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of any of our product candidates due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations and additional legislative changes. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription drugs and surgical procedures and other treatments, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products.

Additionally, we may develop companion diagnostic tests for use with our product candidates. We, or our collaborators, may be required to obtain coverage and reimbursement for these tests separate and apart from the coverage and reimbursement we seek for our product candidates, once approved. Even if we obtain regulatory approval or clearance for such companion diagnostics, there is significant uncertainty regarding our ability to obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement for the same reasons applicable to our product candidates. Medicare reimbursement methodologies, whether under Part A, Part B, or clinical laboratory fee schedule may be amended from time to time, and we cannot predict what effect any change to these methodologies would have on any product candidate or companion diagnostic for which we receive approval. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement from both third-party payors for the companion diagnostic tests that we develop and for which we obtain regulatory approval could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Healthcare legislative measures aimed at reducing healthcare costs may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

The U.S. and many foreign jurisdictions have enacted or proposed legislative and regulatory changes affecting the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates or any future product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell a product for which we obtain marketing approval. Changes in regulations, statutes or the interpretation of existing regulations could impact our business in the future by requiring, for example: (i) changes to our manufacturing arrangements; (ii) additions or modifications to product labeling; (iii) the recall or discontinuation of our products; or (iv) additional record-keeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the operation of our business.

70

In the U.S., there have been and continue to be a number of legislative initiatives to contain healthcare costs. For example, in March 2010, the Affordable Care Act (the "ACA"), was passed, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacted 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% (increased to 70% pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, effective as of 2019) 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 its enactment, there have been numerous judicial, administrative, executive, and legislative challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future. Various portions of the ACA are currently undergoing legal and constitutional challenges in the U.S. Supreme Court and members of Congress have introduced several pieces of legislation aimed at significantly revising or repealing the ACA. The implementation of the ACA is ongoing, the law appears likely to continue the downward pressure on pharmaceutical pricing, especially under the Medicare program, and may also increase our regulatory burdens and operating costs. Litigation and legislation related to the ACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.

U.S. federal government agencies currently face potentially significant spending reductions. The Budget Control Act of 2011 (the "BCA") established a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, which was tasked with achieving a reduction in the federal debt level of at least $1.2 trillion. That committee did not draft a proposal by the BCA’s deadline. As a result, automatic cuts, referred to as sequestration, in various federal programs were scheduled to take place, beginning in January 2013, although the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 delayed the BCA’s automatic cuts until March 1, 2013. While the Medicare program’s eligibility and scope of benefits are generally exempt from these cuts, Medicare payments to providers and Part D health plans are not exempt. The BCA did, however, provide that the Medicare cuts to providers and Part D health plans would not exceed two percent unless additional Congressional action is taken. President Obama issued the sequestration order on March 1, 2013, and cuts went into effect on April 1, 2013. Pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, also known as the CARES Act, and subsequent legislation, these reductions were suspended from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the reduction will be one percent from April 1, 2022 through June 30, 2022.

There has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the U.S. 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. The former Trump administration's budget proposal for fiscal year 2021 included a $135 billion allowance to support legislative proposals seeking to reduce drug prices, increase competition, lower out-of-pocket drug costs for patients, and increase patient access to lower-cost generic and biosimilar drugs. On March 10, 2020, the former Trump administration sent “principles” for drug pricing to Congress, calling for legislation that would, among other things, cap Medicare Part D beneficiary out-of-pocket pharmacy expenses, provide an option to cap Medicare Part D beneficiary monthly out-of-pocket expenses, and place limits on pharmaceutical price increases. Additionally, the former Trump administration released a “Blueprint” to lower drug prices and reduce out-of-pocket costs of drugs that contains additional proposals to increase manufacturer competition, increase the negotiating power of certain federal healthcare programs, incentivize manufacturers to lower the list price of their products and reduce the out-of-pocket costs of drug products paid by consumers. HHS has already implemented certain measures. For example, in May 2019, CMS issued a final rule to allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option of using step therapy, a type of prior authorization, for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020. This final rule codified CMS’s policy change that was effective January 1, 2019. However, it is unclear whether the Biden administration will challenge, reverse, revoke or otherwise modify these executive and administrative actions.

71

In 2020, former President Trump signed four Executive Orders aimed at lowering drug prices. In response, the FDA released a final rule on September 24, 2020, which went into effect on November 30, 2020, providing guidance for states to build and submit for approval importation plans for certain prescription drugs from Canada. Further, on November 20, 2020 CMS issued an Interim Final Rule implementing the Most Favored Nation ("MFN") Model under which Medicare Part B reimbursement rates will be calculated for certain drugs and biologicals based on the lowest price drug manufacturers receive in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries with a similar gross domestic product per capita. The MFN Model regulations mandate participation by identified Part B providers and would have applied to all U.S. and territories for a seven-year period beginning January 1, 2021, and ending December 31, 2027. However, in response to a lawsuit filed by several industry groups, on December 28, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a nationwide preliminary injunction enjoining government defendants from implementing the MFN Rule pending completion of notice-and-comment procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act. On January 13, 2021, in a separate lawsuit brought by industry groups in the U.S. District of Maryland, the government defendants entered a joint motion to stay litigation on the condition that the government would not appeal the preliminary injunction granted in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and that performance for any final regulation stemming from the MFN Interim Final Rule shall not commence earlier than 60 days after publication of that regulation in the Federal Register. Further, authorities in Canada have passed rules designed to safeguard the Canadian drug supply from shortages. If implemented, importation of drugs from Canada and the MFN Model may materially and adversely affect the price we receive for any of our product candidates. Additionally, on December 2, 2020, HHS published a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers. Pursuant to an order entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the portion of the rule eliminating safe harbor protection for certain rebates related to the sale or purchase of a pharmaceutical product from a manufacturer to a plan sponsor under Medicare Part D has been delayed to January 1, 2023. Further, implementation of this change and new safe harbors for point-of-sale reductions in price for prescription pharmaceutical products and pharmacy benefit manager service fees are currently under review by the Biden administration and may be amended or repealed.

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

At the state level, individual states are increasingly aggressive in 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. In addition, regional health care authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other health care programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing.

We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will 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 our product candidates or additional pricing pressures.

Our revenue prospects could be affected by changes in healthcare spending and policy in the U.S. and abroad. We operate in a highly regulated industry and new laws, regulations or judicial decisions, or new interpretations of existing laws, regulations or decisions, related to healthcare availability, the method of delivery or payment for healthcare products and services could negatively impact our business, operations and financial condition.

There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the foreign, federal and state levels directed at broadening the availability of healthcare and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. We cannot predict the initiatives that may be adopted in the future, including repeal, replacement or significant revisions to the ACA. The continuing efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payors of healthcare services to contain or reduce costs of healthcare and/or impose price controls may adversely affect:

72

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

If product liability lawsuits are brought against us, we may incur substantial liabilities and may be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates.

We face an inherent risk of product liability as a result of the clinical testing of our product candidates and will face an even greater risk if we commercialize any products. For example, we may be sued if our product candidates cause or are perceived to cause injury or are found to be otherwise unsuitable during clinical testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties. Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates. Even successful defense would require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

Failure to obtain or retain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost to protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of product candidates we develop, alone or with corporate collaborators. Although we have clinical trial insurance, our insurance policies also have various exclusions, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. We may have to pay any amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient capital to pay such amounts. Even if our agreements with any future corporate collaborators entitle us to indemnification against losses, such indemnification may not be available or adequate should any claim arise.

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