cccc-10k_20211231.htm

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021

Commission File Number 001-39567

C4 Therapeutics, Inc.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its Charter)

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (617) 231-0700

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

Title of each class Trading Symbol(s) Name of each exchange on which registered

Common Stock, $0.0001 par value per share CCCC The Nasdaq Global Select Market

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, 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.

Large accelerated filer ☒ Accelerated filer ☐

Non-accelerated filer ☐ Smaller reporting company ☐

Emerging growth company ☐

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. ☒

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 common equity held by non-affiliates of the Registrant, based on the closing price of the shares of common stock on The NASDAQ Stock Market on June 30, 2021, was $1,278,344,331.

The number of shares of Registrant’s Common Stock outstanding as of February 15, 2022 was 48,738,862.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement for its 2021 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be filed pursuant to Regulation 14A within 120 days of the end of the registrant’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K to the extent stated herein.

Table of Contents

Page

PART I

Item 1. Business 1

Item 1A. Risk Factors 41

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments 82

Item 2. Properties 82

Item 3. Legal Proceedings 82

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures 82

PART II

Item 6. Selected Financial Data 83

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk 97

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data 97

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures 97

Item 9B. Other Information 100

Item 9C. Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections 100

PART III

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance 101

Item 11. Executive Compensation 101

Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services 101

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules 102

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K, or Form 10-K, including the section entitled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” contains express or implied forward-looking statements that are based on our management’s belief and assumptions and on information currently available to our management. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in these forward-looking statements are reasonable, these statements relate to future events or our future operational or 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. Forward-looking statements in this Form 10-K may include, but are not limited to, statements about:

• the potential attributes and benefits of our product candidates;

• the pricing and reimbursement of our product candidates, if approved;

• our financial performance;

• regulatory developments in the United States and foreign countries;

• the success of competing therapies that are or may become available;

• our ability to attract and retain key scientific or management personnel;

• developments relating to our competitors and our industry; and

In some cases, forward-looking statements can be identified by terminology such as “will,” “may,” “should,” “could,” “expects,” “intends,” “plans,” “aims,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “predicts,” “potential,” “continue,” or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology, although not all forward-looking statements contain these words. These statements are only predictions. You should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements because they involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors, which are, in some cases, beyond our control and which could materially affect results. Factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from current expectations include, among other things, those listed under the section titled “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Form 10-K. If one or more of these risks or uncertainties occur, or if our underlying assumptions prove to be incorrect, actual events or results may vary significantly from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. No forward-looking statement is a promise or a guarantee of future performance.

The forward-looking statements in this Form 10-K represent our views as of the date of this Form 10-K. We anticipate that subsequent events and developments will cause our views to change. However, while we may elect to update these forward-looking statements at some point in the future, we have no current intention of doing so except to the extent required by applicable law. You should therefore not rely on these forward-looking statements as representing our views as of any date subsequent to the date of this Form 10-K.

This Form 10-K may include statistical and other industry and market data that we obtained from industry publications and research, surveys, and studies conducted by third parties. Industry publications and third-party research, surveys, and studies generally indicate that their information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, although they do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of such information. We have not independently verified the information contained in such sources.

iii

SUMMARY OF RISK FACTORS

Our ability to implement our business strategy is subject to numerous risks that you should be aware of before making an investment decision. These risks are described more fully in Part I, Item 1A - Risk Factors in this Form 10-K. These risks include, among others:

NOTE REGARDING COMPANY REFERENCES

Unless the context otherwise requires, the terms “C4 Therapeutics,” “the Company,” “we,” “us,” and “our” in this Form 10-K refer to C4 Therapeutics, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiary.

NOTE REGARDING TRADEMARKS

We own or have rights to various trademarks, service marks and trade names that are used in connection with the operation of our business, including our company name, C4 Therapeutics, our logo, the name of our TORPEDO technology platform and the names of our BIDAC and MONODAC protein degrader product candidates. This Form 10-K may also contain trademarks, service marks and trade names of third parties, which are the property of their respective owners. Our use or display of third parties’ trademarks, service marks, trade names or products in this prospectus is not intended to and does not imply a relationship with, or endorsement or sponsorship by us. Solely for convenience, the trademarks, service marks and trade names referred to in this prospectus may appear without the ®, TM or SM symbols, but the omission of such references is not intended to indicate, in any way, that we will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, our rights or the right of the applicable owner of these trademarks, service marks and trade names.

PART I

Item 1. Business.

Overview

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company dedicated to advancing targeted protein degradation science to develop a new generation of small-molecule medicines to transform how disease is treated. Historically, the focus in our industry has been on discovering and developing small molecule medicines that inhibit the activity of disease-causing proteins. However, that approach has been limited to only those proteins where chemistry can be used to bind to active sites on the protein and effectively inhibit its activity, which accounts for less than 15% of the human proteome. Furthermore, for those targets where inhibitors have been approved, resistance mechanisms emerge that ultimately render inhibitor approaches ineffective over time. We leverage our proprietary technology platform, which we call TORPEDO (Target ORiented ProtEin Degrader Optimizer), to efficiently design and optimize small-molecule medicines that harness the body’s natural protein recycling system to rapidly degrade disease-causing protein, offering the potential to overcome resistance mechanisms, target the 85% of the human proteome deemed undruggable, and improve patient outcomes. We are using our TORPEDO platform to advance multiple targeted oncology programs to the clinic while expanding the platform to deliver the next wave of medicines for difficult-to-treat diseases and ultimately improve treatment options for patients.

Our TORPEDO platform enables the discovery of a new class of targeted investigational small molecule medicines called protein degraders. Protein degraders leverage the body’s natural protein disposal system, specifically the ubiquitin-proteasome system (UPS), to catalyze the destruction of target proteins. By harnessing the body’s natural process for destroying unwanted proteins, targeted protein degradation offers a novel method to treat disease and replicate the benefits of genetic knockdowns with a small molecule approach.

Our degraders enable a family of proteins, called E3 ligases, to come into close enough proximity to disease-causing proteins so that the E3 ligase can “tag” the disease-causing protein for destruction. This is called ubiquitination, which is the process by which an E3 ligase tags a target protein for degradation using a molecular tag called ubiquitin, rather than specific compound-binding sites.

Our TORPEDO platform has the capability to design two types of protein degraders. We refer to the first type of degrader as MonoDACs, which are Monofunctional Degradation Activating Compounds and are referred to by some in the industry as “molecular glues.” MonoDAC degraders function by binding to E3 ligases and creating a new surface on the E3 ligases that enhances the binding of the E3 ligases to target proteins. We refer to the second type of degrader as BiDAC degraders, which are Bifunctional Degradation Activating Compounds. BiDAC degraders are designed so that one end of the molecule binds to the disease-causing target protein and the other end binds to the E3 ligase. This is depicted in the image below.

Each of these degrader approaches is intended to result in the same end point: bringing the E3 ligase in close enough proximity to the disease-causing protein, so that the E3 ligase can “tag” it for destruction.

Our robust chemistry engine and proprietary analytic models of pharmacokinetics, or PK, and pharmacodynamics, or PD, enable us to efficiently design and synthesize degraders for a selected target that are optimized for overall degradation efficiency and properties such as solubility, permeability, and oral bioavailability. These PK/PD models allow us to predict the depth and duration of target degradation in vivo and select candidate degraders with confidence.

We have leveraged our TORPEDO platform to develop a robust pipeline reflected in the image below.

Our most advanced product candidate, CFT7455, is an orally bioavailable MonoDAC degrader of protein targets called IKZF1 and IKZF3, currently in clinical development for multiple myeloma, or MM, and non-Hodgkin lymphomas, or NHLs, including peripheral T-cell lymphoma, or PTCL, and mantle cell lymphoma, or MCL. We have selected IKZF1 and IZKF3 as our initial targets because they have a strong mechanistic rationale, a well-defined biology, and targeting them with a novel degrader may address a significant unmet need. In our preclinical studies, CFT7455 has demonstrated potent and selective protein degradation with favorable pharmacological properties. We believe that the differentiated pharmacology of CFT7455, including its high potency, may translate into improved clinical outcomes over the current standard-of-care or commonly used agents in each of the indications we are pursuing. In June 2021, we initiated a first-in-human Phase 1/2 clinical trial for this product candidate and a number of sites are presently open and enrolling patients. Furthermore, in August 2021, the FDA granted orphan drug designation to CFT7455 for the treatment of multiple myeloma.

We are also developing CFT8634, an orally bioavailable BiDAC degrader of a protein target called BRD9, for synovial sarcoma and SMARCB1-deleted solid tumors. Using currently available modalities, BRD9 has been considered an undruggable target. BRD9 is a component of the non-canonical BAF complex, or ncBAF, which plays a role in regulating gene transcription. In cells with normal BAF complexes, BRD9 is generally non-essential for cell survival. However, some tumors, including synovial sarcomas, encode genetic mutations that render the ncBAF complex—and thus BRD9—essential for tumor growth. CFT8634 has shown potent anti-tumor activity in synovial sarcoma cell lines but does not appear to affect normal cells. Further, CFT8634 has shown in vivo activity in synovial sarcoma xenograft models when dosed orally. In December 2021, the FDA cleared the IND application for CFT8634, and we expect to dose the first patient in a first-in-human Phase 1/2 clinical trial of this product candidate in the first half of 2022.

Further, we are developing CFT1946, an orally bioavailable BiDAC degrader specifically targeting V600X mutant BRAF to treat melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, or NSCLC, colorectal cancer and other solid malignancies that harbor this mutation. In the second half of 2022, we expect to submit an IND for this product candidate and begin a first-in human Phase 1/2 clinical trial in BRAF V600X driven cancers including melanoma, NSCLC, and colorectal cancer. In November 2021, we regained rights to our BRAF program from Roche after our companies mutually agreed to terminate our agreement solely with respect to the BRAF target, enabling us to move this program forward independently.

Additionally, we are developing CFT8919, an orally bioavailable, allosteric, mutant-selective BiDAC degrader of epidermal growth factor receptor, or EGFR, with an L858R mutation in NSCLC. We expect to complete IND-enabling activities for this product candidate by the end of 2022.

Beyond these initial product candidates, we are further diversifying our pipeline by developing new degraders against both clinically-validated and currently undruggable targets for our own proprietary pipeline and for the pipeline we are developing in collaboration with Roche, Biogen and Calico. We have engineered degraders that have successfully achieved blood-brain barrier penetration in preclinical studies, which is a key step in developing medicines with the potential to treat brain metastases in oncology, as well as in therapeutic areas such neurodegenerative diseases. We also believe there are many other

therapeutic areas and indications where leveraging our TORPEDO platform to develop novel degraders may be advantageous.

In addition to the programs identified above and our early-stage development collaborations with Roche, Biogen, and Calico, we are conducting exploratory research and development work on various other wholly owned assets.

Our Strategy

We are committed to transforming the treatment of cancer and other diseases through the discovery, development, and commercialization of novel therapies that destroy disease-causing proteins.

Key elements of our strategy are to:

Overview of Protein Degradation

Protein Degradation

Proteins are large, complex molecules that play many critical roles in the human body. Due to their central role in biological function, protein interactions control the mechanisms leading to healthy and diseased states. Diseases are often caused by mutations that alter the normal function of proteins and in turn lead to protein dysfunction and then disease. Recent scientific advances continue to implicate the role of specific proteins in multiple disease states.

Protein levels within cells are controlled by a balance between their synthesis rate and their rate of degradation. Protein degradation provides a natural mechanism to maintain protein levels at a stable equilibrium, to remove aged or faulty proteins, or to rapidly eliminate the activity of certain regulatory proteins in response to specific signals. The human body has a highly conserved degradation machinery known as the ubiquitin proteasome system (UPS) that can identify and break down proteins into their component amino acids. This process is mediated in part by a family of proteins called E3 ligases. The primary role of E3 ligases is to act as a quality control inspector by identifying proteins that are old, damaged, misfolded or otherwise deemed ready for degradation. When an E3 ligase identifies a target protein for degradation, it attaches a molecular tag called ubiquitin in a process called ubiquitination. This ubiquitination process typically continues until the target protein is tagged with multiple ubiquitins, known as poly-ubiquitination. Once the target protein is poly-ubiquitinated, it is released by the E3 ligase and is then quickly recognized by a proteasome, which is the cell’s recycling plant. The proteasome degrades poly-ubiquitinated proteins into their component amino acids, and these amino acids can then be recycled to form new proteins or can be excreted by the cell. This process is illustrated in the following graphic.

Approximately five percent of all human genes are dedicated to encoding components of the ubiquitin-proteasome system. In addition, many proteins of therapeutic interest are often regulated by E3 ligases. Collectively, these factors underscore the essential role E3 ligases play in normal cellular function and how they can be leveraged against therapeutic protein targets.

Targeted protein degraders represent a novel modality that seeks to harness this natural degradation machinery to destroy disease-causing target proteins that E3 ligases would not otherwise target for destruction. The process of targeted protein degradation mediated by our degraders is illustrated in the graphic below.

Both our MonoDAC degraders and BiDAC degraders follow the same catalytic process, with the first step being the formation of a complex between the native E3 ligase, degrader and target protein, which we refer to as the ternary complex. This is shown in Step 2 in the above graphic for a BiDAC degrader. Formation of an appropriate ternary complex that can undergo ubiquitination results in poly-ubiquitination of the target in Step 3. Once the poly-ubiquitination process is complete for one molecule of a target protein, the degrader is released, as shown in Step 4, and then degradation of the target protein by the proteasome occurs in Step 5. Because the degrader is released unchanged, this recursive process—binding the target protein, ternary complex formation with the E3 ligase, poly-ubiquitination and release for degradation—can occur thousands of times with a single degrader molecule before it is eventually cleared by the body. Importantly, both the natural protein degradation process and the targeted protein degradation mediated by our degraders occur rapidly, on the order of milliseconds from initial target-ligase encounter to poly-ubiquitination and release for degradation by the proteasome. In this way, protein degraders act as a catalyst for a natural process and we refer to this process as the catalytic cycle, which is a crucial differentiator between degraders and traditional protein inhibitors, which must remain bound to the target protein to remain effective.

Advantages of Targeted Protein Degradation Over Traditional Protein Inhibitors

Many current targeted therapies are based on small molecules that inhibit the biological function of a protein of interest. One of the main limitations of inhibitor-based treatments is that sustained target occupancy levels that are required for the inhibition of the biological function of protein, and thus efficacy. Since the pharmacological effect is driven by the drug exposure profile, the overall timing and duration of drug action is dependent on drug absorption, distribution, and elimination. These exposures can be challenging to achieve and may increase the likelihood of significant off-target side effects. A further limitation of this approach is the requirement to find compounds that bind to specific active sites on the protein that result in functional inhibition, as there are many sites on a target protein where small molecules can bind but have no effect on the overall function.

We believe targeted protein degradation is a novel modality that could offer significant potential benefits over traditional small molecule inhibitor approaches, including improved and sustained potency, fast and recursive catalytic effect, high selectivity, and an expansive target landscape.

Improved and Sustained Potency

Degraders have the ability to offer a many-fold amplification of effect because a single degrader molecule can exert its effect recursively on a large number of target proteins. This ability of a degrader molecule to repeat its catalytic cycle multiple times is known as catalytic amplification. In contrast, traditional protein inhibitors rely on one-to-one binding of an inhibitor molecule with a target protein, with the protein only deactivated while the inhibitor is bound. This means that much higher concentrations of a protein inhibitor drug are needed to achieve the same level of therapeutic effect as a protein degrader.

In addition to requiring significantly less drug than a protein inhibitor, a degrader’s impact on target protein function is more durable than that of a traditional inhibitor. This is because the activity of a target protein resumes as soon as an inhibitor is no longer bound to it, whereas a degrader completely eliminates its target protein and disease-causing activity is prevented until the cell is able to synthesize replacement proteins – a process that can take hours or even days. Therefore, in contrast to a typical reversible inhibitor, the effect of a degrader can persist well after it has been cleared from the body. The ability of a degrader to eliminate its target completely is another mechanism for improved potency relative to a traditional inhibitor. This is because a single protein can often have multiple functions, each mediated by a different domain. An inhibitor can only interfere with protein functions directly impacted by the region to which it binds. In the case of a disease-causing protein where more than one function contributes to pathogenic activity (for example, aberrant enzyme activity as well as ability to form multiprotein complexes), a degrader will eliminate all functions and therefore have a more profound effect versus an inhibitor that only blocks one. All these factors mean that degraders may help to achieve a more durable biological effect and better clinical outcomes.

High Selectivity

One of the primary challenges of protein inhibition is attempting to identify and develop molecules that only target cancerous cells or mutant proteins without having deleterious effects on normal cells or proteins, commonly referred to as off-target effects.

Each step in the protein degradation catalytic cycle requires specific positioning of the target protein and E3 ligase to progress through the cycle, and these positioning requirements can serve as filters to increase selectivity of a degrader molecule so that only the target protein is ultimately degraded, even if the degrader binds to multiple proteins. For example, degraders are created with the shape, or conformation, of the target protein in mind because a degrader and its target protein must assume a conformation amenable to forming a ternary complex with an E3 ligase. As a result, even if a degrader were to bind to a non-target protein, the resulting ternary complex may not have a conformation that is appropriate to facilitate ubiquitination and subsequent degradation. We are able to leverage these intrinsic properties of the ubiquitin-proteasome protein degradation pathway to design degraders to be highly selective for disease-causing target proteins.

Expansive Target Landscape

Traditional inhibitors can only have a therapeutic effect if they are able to bind tightly to a site on a disease-causing protein that interferes with its function. This requires that the inhibitor binds directly to a protein’s active site, or to an allosteric site in a way that leads to a conformational change that impairs protein activity. This inherently limits the number of druggable targets addressable with traditional inhibitors, as many potential binding sites are not in regions of a protein that interfere with function. In contrast, degraders can use any binding site on a protein to facilitate formation of a ternary complex with an E3 ligase that leads to its destruction. Additionally, whereas an inhibitor requires high affinity to its binding site to maintain occupancy and block function, degraders can interact with relatively weaker affinity in a transient fashion and still enable ubiquitination and destruction of the protein. Specifically, less than 15% of proteins are considered druggable with traditional small molecule inhibitors because of limitations, including lack of accessible active binding sites. Targeted protein

degradationgreatly expands the potential target pool to include a significant proportion of those currently considered undruggable.

Our Approach

We employ a comprehensive approach to product candidate discovery, selection, and development to maximize the potential therapeutic benefit of our protein degraders. We seek out indications with high value protein targets that may benefit the most from degraders, with catalytic degradation turnover as the key metric by which to assess protein degradation. To that end, we have invested heavily in experimental tools, computational and predictive models and team expertise to analyze and optimize the catalytic ability of our degraders through our TORPEDO platform. Additionally, we leverage our platform to optimize the ability of our degraders to initiate the ubiquitin-proteasome protein degradation cycle and predict their function in vivo. Due to the rapid optimization allowed by our TORPEDOplatform and the ability of our platform to predict degrader effects in vivo, we are able to quickly and efficiently advance programs from target identification to the candidate development stage.

Our TORPEDOPlatform

Our proprietary platform, TORPEDO, allows for informed and efficient drug design and discovery through a robust chemistry engine and proprietary assays, culminating in predictive models that enable us to maximize catalytic turnover and predict in vivo performance. Key elements of the platform include:

These features help focus our platform on the creation of candidates that we believe will present minimized biology and toxicity risk and address unmet treatment needs.

Our Product Candidates—Highly Potent and Selective Targeted Protein Degraders

We currently have a number of product candidates in development. We are currently conducting a first-in-human Phase 1/2 clinical trial of CFT7455 for the treatment of MM and NHL and anticipate that we will initiate a first-in-human clinical trial of CFT8634 in the first half of 2022. In addition, we anticipate that CFT1946 will be in the clinic by the end of 2022, with CFT8919 completing IND-enabling activities in 2022. These programs are directed towards targets that remain inadequately treated with available therapies or are undruggable.

CFT7455: A IKZF1/3 Degrader for Multiple Myeloma, Peripheral T-Cell Lymphoma and Mantle Cell Lymphoma

We are developing CFT7455, an orally bioavailable degrader designed to target IKZF1/3, for the treatment of MM and NHLs, including PTCL, and MCL. We have chosen IKZF1 and IZKF3 as our initial targets for degradation because of their strong mechanistic rationale and well-defined biology. In preclinical studies, CFT7455 has shown robust activity in MM, PTCL and MCL subcutaneous xenograft mouse models, providing preclinical proof of concept. Specifically in MM, we have

observed in preclinical studies that CFT7455 remains active in in vivo and in vitro models that are relatively insensitive to standard of care agents that have a similar mechanism of action, such as pomalidomide. We believe that the differentiated pharmacology of CFT7455, including its high potency, may translate into significantly improved clinical outcomes in each of the indications in which we are pursuing its development. Additionally, our first-in-human Phase 1/2 clinical trial is designed to capitalize on potential opportunities for expedited product development and accelerated approval in MM, PTCL and MCL. In August 2021, the FDA granted orphan drug designation, or ODD, to CFT7455 for the treatment of MM.

IKZF1 and IZKF3 Are Well Understood Biological Targets for Certain Blood Cancers

IKZF1 and IKZF3 are transcription factors central to the differentiation of lympho-myeloid multipotent progenitor cells through mature immune cells, including T cells and plasma cells, such as B cells. In particular, by preventing the maturation of B cells there is an antiproliferative effect in B-cell driven blood cancers, such as MM, B-cell lymphomas and myelodysplastic syndrome. In addition to these cell-intrinsic dependencies on IKFZ1/3 for B cell maturation, degradation of IKZF1 and IKZF3 has been shown in third-party research to lead to enhanced IL-2 expression in T cells, meaning IKZF1/3 degradation also induces T cell activity and may exert anti-cancer effects. Further, IKZF1/3 has been previously validated as a target in clinical practice as lenalidomide and pomalidomide primarily target IKZF1/3 as their mechanism of action.

Multiple Myeloma

In the United States, MM represents nearly 1.8% of all new cancer cases. The National Cancer Institute estimated that there were 34,920 new cases of MM in the United States and 12,410 deaths from the disease in 2021. Although overall outcomes for patients with MM have improved substantially over the past several decades, patients with MM have a poor prognosis and the predicted median five-year relative survival rate is only 55.6%. As such, there remains a significant unmet need.

Most patients with MM will have an initial response to treatment. Based on fluorescence in situ hybridization, or FISH, studies on bone marrow, patients are stratified into high-risk or standard-risk categories. High-risk patients eligible for hematopoietic cell transplantation receive induction therapy with a combination regimen, often including an IKZF1/3 targeting drug like lenalidomide, to reduce the number of tumor cells prior to stem cell collection. Alternatively, patients who are ineligible for hematopoietic cell transplantation immediately receive a combination regimen, often with three to four classes of drugs, including an IKZF1/3 targeting drug and a steroid, typically dexamethasone, until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

However, current therapies are not curative, and most patients will ultimately progress. Despite the likelihood of an initial remission, there is a significant unmet need because most patients experience serial relapse and will be treated with most available agents at some point during their disease course. In our clinical program, we will initially focus on treating patients with relapsed or refractory MM who have received at least three lines of specified prior therapy, including lenalidomide, pomalidomide, a proteasome inhibitors and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, or mAb. Ultimately, our intention is to seek approval in earlier lines of therapy, replacing or complementing current IKZF1/3 targeting drugs. We believe that the high potency and activity we have seen in vivo has the potential to translate into a meaningful benefit for patients.

Peripheral T-cell Lymphomas

PTCLs are a heterogeneous and typically aggressive group of NHLs. The Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program or SEER Program, of the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, estimated that there were 81,560 new cases of NHL in the United States and 20,720 deaths from the disease in 2021. PTCLs comprise approximately 4% of all NHLs in the United States and Europe, with an incidence that increased from 0.1 cases per 100,000 in 1992 to 0.4 cases per 100,000 in 2006, potentially reflecting improved diagnostic methods. The five-year relative survival of patients with PTCL is 50%.

PTCL is a heterogeneous malignancy with many subtypes and while the outcomes in these subtypes vary, many patients with PTCL do poorly. For example, in patients with PTCL in whom no subtype is defined, which is often referred to as PTCL not otherwise specified or PTCL-NOS, the five-year overall survival is approximately 20% to 32%. Further, patients with angioimmunoblastic, natural killer/T-cell lymphoma, adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma, hepatosplenic, enteropathy type or ALK-peripheral T-cell lymphoma all have a median five-year overall survival of less than 50%. Although initial overall response rates for chemotherapy are approximately 40% to 75%, most patients either relapse or fail to achieve remission. Median progression free survival, or PFS, following chemotherapy is 12 to 14 months, with a median five-year survival rate of approximately 20% to 30%. There is a significant unmet need for relapsed or refractory disease as there is no accepted standard of care for this population. Lenalidomide has been tested clinically in PTCL in a Phase 2 clinical trial and shown to have an overall response rate of 22% to 26%. However, Cereblon modulators, which are also known as iMiDs such as lenalidomide, are not widely used nor approved for treating PTCL. Based on our preclinical data, we believe CFT7455 has the potential to create a meaningful benefit for these patients and become an established standard of care for these patients.

Mantle Cell Lymphoma

MCL is one of the mature B-cell NHLs and comprises approximately seven percent of adult NHLs in the United States and Europe, with an incidence of approximately 0.8 cases per 100,000 persons per year according to 2021 SEER Program estimates. Median overall survival for patients receiving intensive therapy is four to five years. There is no universally accepted standard of care for MCL. Outside of agents being tested in clinical trials, treatment options typically include some combination of conventional chemoimmunotherapy, rituximab, and radiation therapy. Most patients with MCL experience serial relapse and are treated with various agents, including IKFZ1/3-targeting drugs, BTK inhibitors, or the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax. Lenalidomide is approved for use in patients with MCL whose disease has relapsed or progressed after two prior therapies, one of which included bortezomib, based in part on an observed overall response rate of approximately 26%. However, lenalidomide is not widely used to treat MCL. Accordingly, we believe that CFT7455 has the potential to meaningfully improve outcomes and become an established standard of care for these patients.

Preclinical Development

We have conducted comprehensive preclinical analysis across multiple mouse models to study CFT7455 as a potential treatment for MM, PTCL and MCL. We performed an in vitro analysis of CFT7455 at varying doses in cells lines across MM and PTCL. The figure below on the left depicts CFT7455, in a MM model, degrading up to approximately 90% of the IKZF1 target protein within 24 hours in a dose-dependent fashion. The figure below on the right depicts CFT7455, in a PTCL model, dose dependently degrading up to approximately 90% of IKZF1 in six hours.

CFT7455 is a highly selective degrader of IKZF1 and IKZF3, as demonstrated by the figure below. The figure depicts the standard method for determining degrader selectivity, which is via a global proteomics experiment that utilizes mass spectrometry to quantify cellular protein levels in DL-40 xenograft tumor cells following drug treatment. In this experiment, the total cellular protein pool is extracted and processed from cells treated with a degrader and then each protein is individually identified and its level quantified. Using this process, we analyzed the effect of CFT7455 on over 8,000 proteins. This data was then compared to control samples from cells treated with the dosing solution alone, referred to as the vehicle, to provide the relative level changes for each protein in the entire cellular protein pool. The x-axis in the graph represents the relative level of proteins in the treated cells compared to control samples and the y-axis shows the level of statistical confidence in the difference in relative levels of each protein. The figure demonstrates that cells treated with CFT7455

degraded only a small subset of the cellular proteins with statistical confidence, which are the proteins falling outside of the shaded area. This analysis shows that CFT7455 is a highly selective degrader of IKZF1 and IKZF3.

Further, we have profiled known Cereblon targets of pomalidomide and lenalidomide, including GSPT1, GSPT2 and SALL4, using target-specific assays. We observed that CFT7455 has no detectable activity against GSPT1 or GSPT2, but it does degrade SALL4, which is not expressed in the cell line used in the analysis reflected in the figure above, and accordingly, its downregulation is not detected in this assay.

In addition to IKZF1 and IKZF3 degradation and selectivity, we have observed potent activity for CFT7455 in vitro across a panel of relevant cell lines. In multiple subcutaneous xenograft mouse models of MM, PTCL and other NHLs, CFT7455 treatment resulted in complete regression, as shown in the graphs below. Significantly, 30 μg/kg of CFT7455 administered once daily, or QD, demonstrated complete regression and clear dose responsiveness in a widely used MM xenograft model, H929, as shown in the graph below.

Additionally, in the RPMI-8226 MM xenograft model, a MM model that is relatively insensitive to treatment with pomalidomide, CFT7455 demonstrated tumor regression and dose responsiveness, as shown in the graph below, and the combination of dexamethasone and CFT7455 resulted in increased activity compared to either CFT7455 or dexamethasone alone.

In the RPMI-8226 MM xenograft, we observed that pomalidomide at the clinically relevant dose of 3,000 μg/kg was indistinguishable from treatment with the vehicle as shown in the graphic below. A low dose of CFT7455, 30 μg/kg, was active in the model, even when administered to large tumors that had grown despite treatment with 3,000 μg/kg of pomalidomide for 21 days and were insensitive to pomalidomide and then were switched to treatment with CFT7455.

As shown in the figures below, in preclinical studies evaluating various doses of CFT7455 and pomalidomide in MM H929 cells, CFT7455 was up to 10,000-fold more potent than pomalidomide, as measured by impact on cell viability after 96

hours. Further, CFT7455 exhibited a high catalytic turnover rate, as measured by CFT7455’s cellular degradation rate of up to 75% at 1.5 hours.

Based on its pharmacological properties, we believe CFT7455 may have a favorable therapeutic index and has the potential to replace or follow existing standard of care therapies. We have also evaluated varied dose regimens, as shown in the figure below, which suggest the possibility of intermittent dosing of CFT7455. By incorporating drug holidays in the dosing schedule, this could further increase the therapeutic index if adverse events are observed. Preliminary data from 28-day oral toxicity studies conducted in rats and monkeys demonstrated that exposures well above the modeled efficacious exposures in humans have generally been well tolerated. Definitive GLP-toxicity studies are ongoing.

Our First-in-Human Phase 1/2 Trial

In June 2021, we initiated a first-in-human Phase 1/2 clinical trial for CFT7455, and sites are open and enrolling patients. This trial will primarily investigate the safety and tolerability of CFT7455, and key secondary endpoints will be to characterize its PK and PD, as well as its anti-tumor activity. Our Phase 1/2 trial is designed as a dose escalation trial of CFT7455 in approximately 40 to 60 adult subjects with MM and NHL, followed by an expansion trial consisting of four arms. The four arms, which we expect to enroll approximately 100 patients in total, will include: a single agent CFT7455 arm in MM, a single agent CFT7455 arm in mantle cell lymphoma, a single agent CFT7455 arm in PTCL, and an arm including CFT7455 in combination with dexamethasone in MM. We have designed the trial to identify a maximum tolerable dose and a recommended Phase 2 dose for expansion in patients with MM, as well as a discrete dose for patients with NHL. Identifying

discrete doses for these two patient populations is done because it has been observed in prior clinical experience that patients with MM may tolerate a higher dose of IKZF1/3 targeting agents than do NHL patients. Additionally, specifically in MM, we are exploring CFT7455 as a single agent, as well as in combination with dexamethasone, because it is possible that the clinical activity or therapeutic index of CFT7455 may be increased by dexamethasone, while also possible that CFT7455 may be sufficiently active and tolerable as a single agent to be developed as a dexamethasone-sparing agent.

CFT8634: A Novel BRD9 Degrader for Synovial Sarcoma

We are developing CFT8634, an orally bioavailable protein degrader targeting BRD9 for the treatment of synovial sarcoma and SMARCB1-deleted solid malignancies. We have chosen BRD9 as a target for our approach because of the strong mechanistic rationale, well-defined biology, unique opportunity to target BRD9 with a degrader (as compared to traditional protein inhibitors, which are infective in this setting), and significant unmet need in these patient populations. Specifically, there is limited benefit of existing treatments for metastatic or locally advanced synovial sarcoma, with patients having a median survival of approximately 18 months. Initially, we plan to pursue development in synovial sarcoma, which is defined by a gene translocation SS18-SSX that results in dependency on BRD9 and is therefore potentially addressable by a BRD9 degrader. We believe that the ability of our degrader CFT8634 to drug BRD9 has the potential to offer a benefit over currently available therapies for patients with synovial sarcoma.

BRD9 Is a Well Characterized Driver of Cancer with No Currently Available Targeted Therapies

BRD9 is a component of the ncBAF complex, which is one of three types of BAF complexes in human cells. The BAF complexes, also known as SWI/SNF complexes, are responsible for regulating gene transcription. Critically, BRD9 and the ncBAF complex of which it is a component, is not normally required for cell survival. Instead, normal cells rely on another complex, cBAF, for cellular growth, and BRD9 is not a member of this complex. However, in certain genetic settings, ncBAF drives malignancy and the resulting tumors are dependent on BRD9. Genetic settings in which BRD9 is critical share the same feature: the function of the cBAF complex is compromised because SMARCB1, a critical component for normal function of the cBAF complex, is removed from the complex. This situation, referred to as BAF perturbation, is seen in both cancers in which SMARCB1 is deleted, such as malignant rhabdoid tumors, or MRTs, and epithelioid sarcoma, as well as when a pathogenic fusion protein referred to as SS18-SSX results in the ejection of SMARCB1 from the BAF complex. This SS18-SSX fusion protein is the defining genetic lesion that drives synovial sarcoma. In each of these settings, BAF perturbation results in a central dependency on the ncBAF complex, and as a result BRD9, for tumor growth. This is an example of synthetic lethality, in which the cancer cell has a specific vulnerability to BRD9 degradation in the setting of the underlying genetic lesion. In contrast, normal cells, which do not harbor this genetic lesion, are relatively unaffected by the degradation of BRD9. As a result, BRD9 is a critical dependency of the cancer in these genetic settings and depriving the cancer cell of BRD9 effectively stops tumor growth.

BRD9 has previously been considered undruggable because existing small molecule inhibitors of the bromodomain are inactive against synovial sarcoma because, preclinically, inhibition of this domain is not sufficient to block BRD9 from driving cancer cell growth. Inhibitors of other protein functions, such as that of the critical domain of unknown function, or DUF, have not been described. We therefore believe that our approach to targeted protein degradation of BRD9 has the potential to offer a major benefit over currently available therapies for synovial sarcoma and SMARCB1-deleted tumors.

Synovial Sarcoma

Synovial sarcoma is an aggressive tumor that accounts for approximately 900 cases in the United States each year, or approximately 10% of all soft tissue sarcomas. While it is prevalent in patients over a wide range of ages, it is more common in younger adult patients, with a median age of onset of 36 years. Like many sarcomas, synovial sarcoma is characterized by recurrent chromosomal arrangements and is referred to as a fusion gene driven malignancy. Specifically, nearly all synovial sarcomas contain a fusion of the SS18 gene on chromosome 18 to the SSX1, SSX2 or SSX4 gene on the X chromosome. This type of mutation is referred to as a t(X;18) chromosomal rearrangement, or an SS18-SSX fusion.

SMARCB1-deleted Tumors

SMARCB1 is a key member of the BAF chromatin-remodeling complex and assists in the control of gene transcription. The function of SMARCB1 and the BAF complex in cancer has only recently been established. SMARCB1 is a tumor suppressor gene, meaning any decrease in function could potentially result in tumor proliferation. The inactivation of both alleles of SMARCB1 has been shown to result in several types of tumors, including MRTs, as well as epithelioid sarcoma, renal medullary carcinoma, undifferentiated pediatric sarcomas, a subset of hepatoblastomas, and others.

MRTs typically present in infancy or early childhood and are often aggressive. If an MRT is found in the central nervous system, MRTs are referred to as atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumors, or AT/RT. Whether the tumor is classified as MRT or AT/RT, the vast majority of these tumors are characterized by the loss of function of the SMARCB1 subunit of the BAF complex.

BRD9 has been shown to be an attractive target in pediatric MRTs because the loss or inactivation of the SMARCB1 subunit of the BAF complex leads to a dependency on BRD9. Mechanistically, SMARCB1 loss results in the reprogramming of the cBAF complex and makes the ncBAF complex essential, in a similar mechanism to that which drives synovial sarcoma. As a result, SMARCB1-mutant MRTs are dependent on the BRD9-containing ncBAF complex and we are able to target this tumor by degrading BRD9. We therefore believe our BRD9 degrader could reduce tumor cell proliferation and improve patient outcomes.

Intensive, multi-modality treatment approaches have improved the clinical outcome of these young patients in a stepwise manner. However, their prognosis remains poor even on these treatment approaches and the median duration of survival in clinical trials does not exceed nine to 17 months depending on the therapeutic approach selected. Consequently, new therapeutic strategies are urgently needed, and we believe CFT8634 may have a potentially meaningful clinical impact in these patients.

Preclinical Development

We have conducted preclinical studies of CFT8634 in two mouse models. CFT8634 is highly selective for BRD9 relative to other bromodomain containing proteins, including BRD7 and BRD4, as shown in the dose dependency of target degradation in H293T cell lines expressing the individual proteins, as reflected in the graphic below.

We have also observed meaningful in vitro dose-dependent inhibition of cell proliferation of synovial sarcoma cell lines over time. Here, cell proliferation is measured by analyzing the occupied area of cells in a sample over time where densely packed cells are considered confluent. Cell growth inhibition is evidenced in cultures that show a growth plateau below 100%. The figure below on the left shows the effect of CFT8634 on BAF perturbed Yamato cell lines, which is a mouse xenograft model

of synovial sarcoma, compared to the effect of a BRD9 inhibitor, shown as BRD9i or the vehicle, dimethylsulfoxide, or DMSO, which were ineffective. As demonstrated in the figure on the right below, CFT8634 had little impact on the growth of a BAF wildtype SW982 cell line, demonstrating that its effect was limited to cells with BAF perturbation.

The below graphic shows CFT8634 was active and tolerated when dosed orally in a mouse xenograft model of synovial sarcoma (Yamato) and a PDX model (SA13412), with dose dependency observed between 3 mg/kg and 50 mg/kg QD, as

well as 20mg/kg twice daily dose, or BID, for Yamato, and 50 mg/kg QD, 25mg/kg BID, and 16.6 mg/kg three times daily for PDX, with all doses generally being well tolerated, as indicated by limited weight loss.

Our Planned First-in-Human Phase 1/2 Clinical Trial

In December 2021, the FDA cleared our IND application for CFT8634, and we expect to dose the first patient in a first-in-human Phase 1/2 clinical trial in the first half of 2022. This Phase 1/2 trial is an open-label dose escalation and expansion trial in patients with synovial sarcoma or a solid tumor with SMARCB1 loss. The Phase 1 portion of the trial will primarily investigate the safety and tolerability of CFT8634 in approximately 20 patients. If a well-tolerated dose is identified for further development, we expect to enroll two expansion cohorts, one of which will include approximately 30 patients who are known to have synovial sarcoma and a second that will be comprised of approximately 20 patients with solid tumors harboring SMARCB1 loss. Assuming CFT8634 has a favorable profile in these early clinical trials, we intend to discuss with the FDA registration in patients with synovial sarcoma after failure of first-line therapy, including the possibility of accelerated approval.

CFT1946: Degrading BRAF V600X to Treat Melanoma, Colorectal and Non-small Cell Lung Cancers

We are developing CFT1946, an orally bioavailable degrader of BRAF V600X. We selected BRAF V600X as a target due to its strong mechanistic rationale, well-defined biology, and unmet need. BRAF mutations occur in approximately 15% of all cancers, with V600X accounting for approximately 70% to 90% of all BRAF mutations. We plan to initially pursue development of CFT1946 in three types of cancers: melanoma, in which BRAF mutations occur in approximately 50% of patients; colorectal, in which BRAF mutations occur in approximately 10-20% of patients; and NSCLC, in which BRAF mutations occur in approximately 1-2% of patients. In patients, there remains a high unmet need for those who relapse after, or do not respond to, approved BRAF inhibitors. We believe that a mutant-specific BRAF V600X degrader could offer a significant mechanistic benefit over currently available BRAF V600E inhibitors and could have the potential to confer significant improvements in clinical outcomes.

BRAF V600X is a Common and Well Understood Oncogenic Mutation

BRAF is one of several protein kinases involved in a signaling cascade to initiate cell proliferation, known as the mitogen-activated protein kinase, or MAPK, pathway. The MAPK pathway conducts extracellular proliferative signals to the nucleus

of cells, signaling them to proliferate. Many cancers are characterized by activating mutations in components of this MAPK pathway, including BRAF V600X mutations, which confer constitutive activation of the MAPK pathway and promote oncogenic transformation and can cause tumor growth.

Single base substitutions for the amino acid valine at codon 600 in the BRAF gene are known as V600, or Class I mutations and when those V600 mutations result in substitution of glutamic acid for valine, they are referred to as V600X mutations.

BRAF V600X mutants activate the MAPK pathway constitutively, meaning that cell proliferation is activated without receiving the extracellular proliferative signals necessary to activate the pathway normally. Constitutive activation occurs because BRAF V600X mutants are able to signal as a single protein, or a monomer, while wild type BRAF proteins must form a complex of two proteins, or a dimer, before downstream signaling can occur. This constitutive activation leads to overactivation of the MAPK cell proliferation pathway, causing oncogenic cell proliferation and tumor growth. Approved small molecule inhibitors of BRAF V600X—vemurafenib, dabrafenib and encorafenib—block the constitutive activation of the MAPK pathway by the mutant BRAF monomer. However, BRAF inhibition with these molecules can lead to an alternative activation of the MAPK pathway, known as paradoxical activation. Under these conditions, BRAF inhibitors bind and inhibit BRAF V600X, but this inhibited form can form a protein dimer with other RAF proteins, including both wild type BRAF and BRAF mutants, activating the second molecule for signaling. This BRAF driven paradoxical activation activates, rather than inhibits, the MAPK pathway. For this reason, BRAF inhibitors are frequently used in combination with inhibitors of MEK, a protein downstream of BRAF in the MAPK pathway, which improves response rates and clinical outcomes. However, patients frequently do not respond sufficiently, or they develop resistance to this approach. Many known mechanisms of resistance to approved BRAF inhibitors result in the promotion of BRAF dimerization and, in these settings, the current BRAF inhibitors are ineffective.

We believe that targeted protein degradation of BRAF V600X offers the potential for a fundamental improvement over current BRAF inhibitors due to the advantages of degraders over inhibitors in general and because degrading mutant BRAF removes the possibility of incorporation into a BRAF dimer and subsequent paradoxical activation.

Melanoma

According to the National Cancer Institute, approximately 106,110 patients were diagnosed with melanoma in 2021 in the United States, and approximately 13% of those cases, or about 13,800 patients per year, will have locally advanced or metastatic disease. Moreover, approximately 50% of late-stage melanoma patients carry BRAF mutations, approximately 90% of which are BRAF V600E mutations. Taken together, we estimate that there are over 5,000 newly diagnosed melanoma patients in the United States per year with BRAF V600E-mutated locally advanced or metastatic disease.

The recommended first-line treatment for patients with BRAF V600E-mutated unresectable or metastatic melanoma is anti-PD-1 monotherapy, such as pembrolizumab or nivolumab, or combination therapy with a BRAF inhibitor, such as dabrafenib, vemurafenib or encorafenib and a MEK inhibitor, such as astrametinib, cobimetinib or binimetinib. However, a significant number of patients undergoing this combination therapy do not sufficiently respond or do not have a durable response as resistance to the therapy occurs. Specifically, across several double-blind randomized controlled trials conducted by others evaluating BRAF and MEK inhibitor combination therapy in patients with previously untreated locally advanced or

metastatic melanoma, the median PFS has ranged from 9.9 to 14.9 months. After each of these lines of therapy is used, there are no approved single-agent therapies that effectively target BRAF. In preclinical models of resistance to BRAF inhibition, our degraders remained active when dosed in combination with a MEK inhibitor, in contrast to the approved BRAF inhibitor, encorafenib, which is inactive in this setting. As a result, a BRAF V600E degrader may be active clinically in the setting of resistance to approved BRAF inhibitors.

In preclinical studies, in the A375 BRAF V600E melanoma model, we have observed that our development candidate CFT1946 shows a dose-dependent reduction in tumor growth and demonstrates tumor regression at the minimum efficacious dose of 10 mg/kg administered orally twice daily. Furthermore, CFT1946 at doses starting at 2mg/kg (PO, BID) all demonstrate superior activity to encorafenib, an FDA approved BRAF-V600 inhibitor. Additionally, there are no adverse effects (assessed by significant loss of body weight) observed in the xenograft study shown below.

We have further demonstrated superior efficacy of CFT1946 in the BRAFi resistant A375 model (BRAF-V600E + NRAS-Q61K) compared to the MEK inhibitor trametinib alone or in combination with encorafenib. The NRAS Q61K activating mutation is a clinically observed mechanism of resistance to BRAF inhibitors. Treatment of xenograft tumors with 10 mg/kg (PO, BID) in combination with 0.1 mg/kg trametinib displayed complete tumor growth inhibition while treatment with encorafenib and trametinib did not provide any significant tumor growth inhibition. We did not observe any adverse effects of treatment with CFT1946 in combination with trametinib (as assessed by no significant changes to mouse body weight) in our xenograft study.

CFT8919: Potent, Oral, Allosteric, Mutant-selective Degrader of EGFR L858R

We are developing CFT8919, an orally bioavailable allosteric degrader of EGFR L858R for the treatment of NSCLC. We have chosen EGFR because of its well-defined biology and the limitations that EGFR kinase inhibitors face that we believe our degrader approach may be able to overcome. Our initial target population is patients with EGFR L858R driven NSCLC who have progressed after treatment with approved EGFR inhibitors, including osimertinib. We believe our EGFR degrader has the potential to overcome resistance to standard of care EGFR inhibitors to effect deeper and more durable responses due to the unique advantages of protein degradation.

EGFR is a Well-Characterized Protein Target for Oncology with Known Resistance Mechanisms

EGFR is a receptor tyrosine kinase that is involved in cell signaling pathways that control cell division and survival. Mutations in the EGFR gene cause the EGFR protein to signal aberrantly in some types of cancer cells, including a subset of patients with NSCLC. Of the known EGFR tyrosine kinase domain mutations, approximately 90% occur as deletions in exon 19 or as point mutations in exon 21, the latter resulting in arginine replacing leucine at codon 858 (L858R). The L858R activating mutation in exon 21 accounts for approximately 25-45% of EGFR-mutant NSCLC. EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, or TKIs, have been developed and provide significant clinical benefit. However, patients ultimately develop resistance, often by acquisition of a secondary resistance mutation in EGFR. T790M is the most prevalent resistance mutation after first- and second-generation EGFR TKIs including gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib and dacomitinib. A third-generation covalent EGFR inhibitor, osimertinib, can overcome this resistance mechanism and is now approved in the first-line setting, but acquired resistance remains an issue. Patients who progress after osimertinib lack effective treatment options and the EGFR C797S mutation is the most common on-target resistance mechanism.

We have developed a mutant-selective degrader targeting EGFR L858R, which remains active in the setting of resistant secondary mutations (T790M and/or C797S). We believe there may be an opportunity for our EGFR degrader as a component of first-line therapy, where we hope our EGFR degrader will affect deeper and more durable responses due to the advantages of a degrader over a standard protein inhibitor. Further, since 30-40% of mutant EGFR NSCLC patients develop brain metastases, penetration of the central nervous system sufficient to drive therapeutic effect in this compartment was a key factor in our selection of CFT8919 as our development candidate.

Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Approximately 195,000 patients in the U.S. are diagnosed with NSCLC each year and between 10 and 15% of these patients have mutant EGFR, or mEGFR. However, in the Asian population, approximately 40% of NSCLC patients have mEGFR. Furthermore, 30 to 40% of mEGFR patients develop brain metastases.

Patients with EGFR L858R have worse outcomes with therapy compared to patients who exhibit an exon19 deletion. When using osimertinib in the front-line setting in patients with EGFR L858R, the median PFS is 14.4 months compared to 21.4 months for patients with an exon19 deletion. The most common cause of resistance to osimertinib in this patient population is the C797S mutation. This shorter median PFS rate and resistance demonstrates the unmet medical need for the L858R patient population.

Preclinical Development

We have conducted preclinical experiments to characterize the activity profile of our EGFR degraders and demonstrated that CFT8919 is a potent and highly selective orally bioavailable degrader of EGFR L858R with broad coverage of on-target resistance mutations as well as intracranial activity.

In human cancer cell lines in vitro, we have observed that CFT8919 induces potent degradation of EGFR L858R at low nanomolar concentrations while no degradation of wild type is induced up to 10 μM. Importantly, CFT8919 retains its activity in the presence of secondary resistance mutations such as T790M and T790M-C797S. This is reflected in the graphic below.

Further, we have evaluated CFT8919 against a broad panel of EGFR resistance mutations in Ba/F3 cell models in vitro. Cellular growth inhibition potency, GI50, was determined by measuring the effect of various concentrations on the proliferation of Ba/F3 cells transformed by various EGFR mutations over 72 hours. As depicted in the table below, CFT8919 demonstrates equipotent anti-proliferation activity against a large panel of EGFR secondary mutations that cause

acquired resistance to the approved EGFR inhibitors such as osimertinib and erlotinib, compared to L858R single mutation.

Kinome profiling and global proteomics evaluation were conducted to evaluate binding and degradation selectivity of CFT8919, and no significant off-target activity of CFT8919 was identified. Kinome selectivity was determined using the DiscoveryX KINOMEscan assay testing 468 kinases, as shown below in the graph on the left. No wild type kinases showed binding at the 50% cutoff when CFT8919 tested at a single concentration of 100nM. The only kinases that CFT8919 exhibited significant binding were the on-target exon21 EGFR activating mutants, L858R and L861Q. In addition, we have evaluated proteome-wide degradation selectivity by utilizing mass spectrometry to quantify cellular protein levels following 6 hours of 300 nM CFT8919 treatment in A431 EGFR-WT and H1975 EGFR-L858R-T790M cell lines in vitro. As depicted below in the table on the right, measurement of over 8000 proteins showed that EGFR-L858R-T790M and CCND1 are the only proteins with >50% protein level decrease induced by CFT8919 treatment, demonstrating its highly selective degradation profile. We believe that CCND1 protein loss is induced by the biological effect of EGFR suppression rather than direct degradation since this change was also observed in osimertinib EGFR inhibitor treatment.

In vivo activity of CFT8919 was assessed in H1975 EGFR-L858R-T790M xenograft (1st generation TKI resistant) and BaF3 EGFR-L858R-T790M-C797S (osimertinib resistant) allograft models. In the H1975 xenograft model, twice daily (BID) oral administration of CFT8919 demonstrated dose-dependent efficacy, with tumor regression observed at doses as low as 10 mg/kg. Regression of Ba/F3 EGFR-L858R-T790M-C797S allograft tumors were achieved with CFT8919 dosed

BID > 25 mg/kg, while osimertinib is inactive as expected. All doses were well tolerated, indicated by no significant body weight loss. This is reflected in the graphic below.

Intracranial activity of CFT8919 was evaluated in the H1975-LUC brain metastasis model. Female BALB/c nude mice were inoculated by intracarotid artery injection with H1975 (EGFR L858R-T790M) luciferase expressing cells. Bioluminescence imaging (BLI) was conducted to follow the tumor growth in brain. As shown in the graphic below, CFT8919 demonstrates rapid and significant reductions in tumor burden with minimal weight loss after oral dosing, indicating its potential to be active in the central nervous system.

Our Other Discovery Programs

In addition to the programs discussed above, we are also progressing several other discovery-stage pipeline programs. In line with our strategy, we assess on a target-by-target basis whether our degraders would provide a compelling and differentiated approach over standard of care or other approaches to the same disease and are consistent with our focus on minimizing biology and toxicity risk and focusing on high unmet medical need, including rare diseases. These early-stage discovery programs include compounds that have already shown the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier in preclinical models. Our discovery programs are a combination of internal programs, over which we have full control and ownership, and programs in collaboration with our partners.

Collaborations and License Agreements

Roche Amended and Restated License Agreement

In March 2016, we entered into a license agreement with Roche, which was amended in June 2016 and amended further in March 2017. We further amended and restated that agreement (as so amended) in December 2018. We refer to this amended and restated agreement as the Roche Agreement. Under the Roche Agreement, we agreed to collaborate with Roche in the research, development, manufacture and commercialization of target-binding degrader medicines using our proprietary TORPEDO platform for the treatment of cancers and other indications. In November 2020, we signed a further amendment to the Roche Agreement that provides a mechanism through which we and Roche can mutually agree to terminate the Roche

Agreement on a target-by-target basis by the entry into a mutual target termination agreement. Upon a termination of this nature, the Roche Agreement, as amended, provides that all rights in know-how and intellectual property in support of products that use inhibition as their mode of action, referred to as the Roche Field, will revert to Roche and all rights in respect of know-how and intellectual property in support of products that use degradation as their mode of action, referred to as the C4T Field, will revert to us. Further, this amendment states that, following the entry into a mutual target termination agreement, Roche will have rights in and responsibility for any know-how and intellectual property generated as a result of the collaboration that fits within the Roche Field and we will have rights in and responsibility for any know-how and intellectual property generated as a result of the collaboration that fits within the C4T Field. In support of this allocation of rights, under the amendment, Roche provided us, and we provided Roche, with a perpetual, irrevocable, fully paid up, exclusive (even as to party granting the license), sublicensable (including in multiple tiers) license to the patents that are allocated to a party under the mutual target termination agreement and a perpetual, irrevocable fully paid up, non-exclusive, sublicensable (including in multiple tiers) license to the know-how that is allocable to a party under the mutual termination agreement.

In November 2020, through the entry into this amendment, we and Roche mutually agreed to terminate the Roche Agreement as to the target EGFR. As a result, Roche is now free to pursue the target EGFR in the Roche Field and we are free to pursue the target EGFR in the C4T Field and all rights in and responsibility for know-how and intellectual property related to EGFR in the Roche Field reverted to the Roche parties and all rights in and responsibility for know-how and intellectual property related to EGFR in the C4T Field reverted to us, with Roche assigning the patents in the C4T Field to us.

In November 2021, we and Roche mutually agreed to terminate the Roche Agreement as to the target BRAF, converting BRAF into a proprietary program for us. As a result, Roche is now free to pursue the target BRAF in the Roche Field and we are now free to pursue the target BRAF in the C4T Field and all rights in and responsibility for know-how and intellectual property related to BRAF in the Roche Field reverted to the Roche parties and all rights in and responsibility for know-how and intellectual property related to BRAF in the C4T Field reverted to us, with Roche is in the process of assigning the patents in the C4T Field to us.

Under the terms of the Roche Agreement, we are responsible for conducting preclinical research and development activities for a number of targets selected by Roche in accordance with a target selection and replacement procedure set forth in the agreement. We are also responsible for conducting Phase 1 clinical trials for products directed to certain targets and for manufacturing activities in connection with the applicable research plans, subject to Roche’s right to assume manufacturing responsibilities at pre-defined times. We and Roche each share in the costs of these research activities.

Under the Roche Agreement, we granted Roche an exclusive option to obtain an exclusive, worldwide license, with the right to sublicense through multiple tiers to develop and commercialize products directed at each target that is subject to the collaboration. Upon the exercise of its option for a particular target, Roche is responsible for the manufacture, development and commercialization of products directed to that target, at its sole expense. However, we have the option to co-develop products directed to certain targets, in which case we would be responsible for a portion of the development costs associated with such co-developed products and eligible to receive increased royalties on sales of such co-developed products. We also have an option to co-detail products for which have exercised our co-development option. If we exercise our co-detail option, we will be responsible for a portion of the co-detailing costs. We generally have the right to opt out of these co-development and co-detailing activities.

Upon signing the Roche Agreement, we received upfront consideration of $40.0 million from Roche. In addition, we receive annual research funding from Roche for each active research plan and we are eligible to receive additional payments upon the achievement of pre-determined research and development success criteria with respect to certain targets. If Roche exercises its option right for a target, Roche is obligated to pay an exercise fee ranging from $7.0 million to $20.0 million, depending on the target. For each target option exercised by Roche, we are eligible to receive milestone payments up to a range of $260 million to $275 million upon the achievement of certain research, development and commercial milestones with respect to corresponding products, subject to certain reductions and exclusions based on intellectual property coverage. Roche is also required to pay us up to $150 million per target in one-time sales-based milestone payments upon the achievement of specified levels of net sales of a product directed to such target. Finally, we are eligible to receive tiered royalties ranging from mid-single digit to mid-teen percentages on net sales of products sold by Roche pursuant to its exercise of its option rights, subject to certain reductions. For sales of products for which we exercise our co-development right, the applicable royalty rates will be increased by a low-single digit percentage.

Unless earlier terminated, the Roche Agreement expires on the date when no royalty or other payment obligations under the Roche Agreement are or will become due. We and Roche each may terminate the Roche Agreement in its entirety or on a target-by-target or product-by-product basis and, in our case, on a country-by-country basis, for the other party’s uncured material breach of its obligations under the Roche Agreement or upon the other party’s bankruptcy, insolvency or similar proceedings. Roche may terminate the Roche Agreement for convenience on a target-by-target, product-by-product or

country-by-country basis. In the event we are acquired by a competitor of Roche, Roche has the right to require us to terminate our research, development and co-detailing activities under the Roche Agreement, after which time we would not be eligible to receive payments for such terminated activities.

Calico License Agreement

In March 2017, we entered into a Collaboration and License Agreement, or the Calico Agreement, with Calico, whereby we agreed to collaborate with Calico to discover, develop and commercialize small molecule protein degraders for diseases of aging, including cancer, for a five-year research term ending in March 2022. In August 2021, we provided Calico with an option to extend the research term with respect to a certain program for up to a one-year period ending in March 2023 and, in September 2021, Calico exercised this option.

Under the Calico Agreement, we and Calico each agreed to conduct joint research activities with respect to a number of targets selected by Calico in accordance with a target selection and replacement procedure set forth in the agreement. During the research term, Calico is responsible for the costs of these research activities and has the right to approve targets for advancement to lead optimization activities to be carried out by the parties under the corresponding research plans.

Upon the completion of our research activities for each target selected by Calico for lead optimization activities, Calico is responsible for, and agrees to use commercially efforts to carry out, all further pre-clinical development, regulatory affairs, manufacturing and commercialization for products directed against each such target. We refer to these products as Collaboration Products. We granted Calico an exclusive license to manufacture and commercialize Collaboration Products under certain of our intellectual property rights.

Under this agreement, Calico paid us an upfront amount of $5.0 million and certain annual payments totaling $5.0 million through December 31, 2020. Upon exercising its option to extend the research term with respect to a certain program ending in March 2023, Calico paid us an additional fee of $1.0 million. Upon successful nomination of a target following a target evaluation phase and initiation of the applicable research plan, we are eligible to receive target initiation payments from Calico. For each target, we are eligible to receive research, development and commercial milestone payments totaling up to $132.0 million. Calico is also required to pay one-time sales-based milestone payments aggregating up to $65.0 million upon the achievement of specified levels of net sales of a product directed to such target, subject to a reduction based on intellectual property coverage. We are also eligible to receive royalty payments on the net sales of Collaboration Products, at percentages in the mid-single digits, subject to certain reductions.

Unless terminated earlier, the Calico Agreement expires on the date when no royalty or other payment obligations under the Calico Agreement are or will become due. We and Calico each may terminate the Calico Agreement in its entirety or on a target-by-target or product-by-product basis and, in our case, on a country-by-country basis, for the other party’s uncured material breach of its obligations or its bankruptcy or insolvency. Calico may terminate the Calico Agreement for convenience in its entirety or on a target-by-target or country-by-country basis, subject to reimbursement of costs and return of materials.

Biogen Collaborative Research and License Agreement

In December 2018, we entered into a collaborative research and license agreement, or the Biogen Agreement, with Biogen, whereby we agreed to collaborate with Biogen and use our proprietary protein degrader platform to research, develop and identify small molecule protein degraders. In February 2020, we entered into an amendment to the Biogen Agreement that provided further clarity around Biogen’s ownership of target binding moieties, which are portions of molecules, and any related intellectual property that are directed at or bind to collaboration targets. This amendment further provides that Biogen licenses to us rights to use these Biogen target binding moieties and any related intellectual property as needed in order to conduct the research and development activities contemplated under the Biogen Agreement.

Under the Biogen Agreement, we granted Biogen an exclusive license under our intellectual property, with the right to sublicense through multiple tiers, (a) for the purpose of performing candidate development activities in accordance with research and development plans agreed upon by the parties and (b) for the purpose of exploiting all degraders and products for any use in the world.

Under the terms of the Biogen Agreement, we are responsible for conducting research and development activities for a number of targets selected by Biogen in accordance with a target selection and replacement procedure set forth in the agreement. We are required to provide all resources necessary to perform candidate development activities, perform those activities with reasonable care and skill and in accordance with applicable law and the Biogen Agreement and use diligent efforts to complete the activities as set forth in the applicable development plan and deliver to Biogen a certain number of degraders directed to each target that meet a range of pre-defined criteria. We and Biogen are also responsible for research activities designed to inform Biogen’s target selection process, for which Biogen will pay for its own costs and will reimburse our costs up to a certain amount.

Upon Biogen’s commencement of the IND-enabling study for a degrader directed towards each target selected by Biogen, Biogen is responsible for, and agrees to use commercially reasonable efforts to carry out, all further development, regulatory affairs, manufacturing and commercialization for at least one product directed against each such target in certain territories.

Upon execution of the Biogen Agreement, Biogen paid us an upfront payment of $45.0 million as prepayment for candidate development activities, and if Biogen elects to extend the collaboration term by a pre-determined period and obtain the right to elect a certain number of additional targets, we are eligible for an additional payment of $62.5 million. Upon Biogen’s receipt of degraders directed to each target that satisfy pre-defined criteria, we are eligible to receive payments ranging from $2.0 million to $5.0 million per target. Upon Biogen’s commencement of the first IND-enabling study for a development candidate directed towards each target, Biogen is required to pay us $8.0 million. For each target, Biogen is required to pay us (a) development and commercialization milestone payments totaling up to $35.0 million and (b) sales milestone payments totaling up to $26.0 million for the achievement of certain amounts of net sales of all products directed to such target, each subject to certain reductions. The total development, commercialization and sales milestone payments will increase if Biogen extends the collaboration term and elects additional targets. In addition, Biogen is required to pay us royalties on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis on the net sales of each product, at percentages in the mid-single digits, subject to certain reductions.

Unless earlier terminated, the Biogen Agreement expires on the date of the last product-by-product and country-by-country basis upon the expiration of the last-to-expire valid claim of a patent right covering the composition of matter of method of use in the approved label of the applicable product in the applicable country. We and Biogen each may terminate the Biogen Agreement (a) with respect to one or more development candidates, products or collaboration targets or, only in the case of Biogen, the entire agreement, for the other party’s uncured material breach of its obligations and (b) in its entirety upon the other party’s bankruptcy, insolvency or similar proceedings. Biogen may also terminate the Biogen Agreement in its entirety or with respect to one or more development candidates, products or collaboration targets for convenience.

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on intellectual property and proprietary products. While we believe that our technology, expertise, scientific knowledge and intellectual property estate provide us with competitive advantages, we face potential competition from many different sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies and public and private research institutions that conduct research, seek patent protection and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing and commercialization. Not only must we compete with other companies that are focused on protein degradation, but any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. Moreover, our industry is characterized by the existence of large numbers of patents and frequent allegations of patent infringement.

Our focus is on the discovery and development of protein degradation therapies using our TORPEDO platform. Other companies developing chimeric small molecules for protein degradation include, without limitation, Arvinas, Inc., BioTheryX, Inc., Cullgen Inc., Foghorn Therapeutics, Inc., Frontier Medicines Corporation, Kymera Therapeutics, Inc, Lycia Therapeutics, Inc., Monte Rosa Therapeutics, Inc., NeoMorph, Inc., Nurix Therapeutics, Inc., Proteovant Therapeutics, Inc., Treeline Biosciences, Inc. and Vividion Therapeutics, Inc. (a subsidiary of Bayer AG). Further, several large pharmaceutical companies have disclosed preclinical investments in this field, including Amgen, AstraZeneca plc, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (and its subsidiary Celgene Corporation), GlaxoSmithKline plc, Genentech, Inc. and Novartis International AG. In addition to competition from other protein degradation therapies, any products that we develop may also face competition from other types of therapies, such as small molecule, antibody, T cell or gene therapies. For example, we understand that Adaptimmune Limited, Foghorn Therapeutics, Inc. and GlaxoSmithKline plc are pursuing the development of therapies for patients with synovial sarcoma.

Our lead product candidates target oncologic indications. The most common methods of treating patients in oncologic indications are surgery, radiation and drug therapy, including chemotherapy, hormone therapy, cellular therapy and targeted drug therapy. There are a variety of available drug therapies marketed for cancer. In many cases, these drugs are administered in combination to enhance efficacy. Some of the currently approved drug therapies are branded and subject to patent protection and others are available on a generic basis. Many of these approved drugs are therapies and are widely accepted by physicians, patients and third-party payors. In general, although there has been considerable progress over the past few decades in the treatment of cancer and the currently marketed therapies provide benefits to many patients, these therapies are all limited to some extent in their efficacy and frequency of adverse events, and none of them are successful in treating all patients. As a result, the level of morbidity and mortality from cancer remains high.

In addition to currently marketed drugs, there are also several product candidates in preclinical development for the treatment of oncologic indications. These products in development may provide efficacy, safety, convenience and other benefits that

are not provided by currently marketed therapies. As a result, they may provide significant competition for any of our product candidates for which we obtain market approval.

If any of our product candidates are approved for the indications for which we expect to conduct clinical trials, they will compete with the foregoing therapies and currently marketed drugs, as well any drugs potentially in development. It is also possible that we will face competition from other biologic or pharmaceutical approaches, as well as from other types of therapies.

Many of our current or potential competitors, either alone or with their collaboration partners, 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. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. In addition, our ability to compete may be affected in many cases by insurers or other third-party payors seeking to encourage the use of generic products. There are generic products currently on the market for certain of the indications that we are pursuing, and additional products are expected to become available on a generic basis over the coming years. If our product candidates are approved, we expect that they will be priced at a significant premium over competitive generic products.

The key competitive factors affecting the success of all our programs, if approved, are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience, price, level of generic competition and availability of reimbursement.

Manufacturing

We do not own or operate and currently have no plans to establish any manufacturing facilities. We rely on and expect to continue to rely on third-party contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, for both drug substance and finished drug product.

We currently obtain our supplies from these manufacturers on a purchase order basis and do not have long-term committed supply arrangements with respect to our product candidates and other materials. Should any of these manufacturers become unavailable to us for any reason, we believe that there are a number of potential replacements, although we may incur some delay in identifying and qualifying such replacements. For additional information, see the section titled “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Dependence on Third Parties—Manufacturing pharmaceutical products is complex and subject toproduct loss for a variety of reasons. We contract with thirdparties for the manufacture of our product candidates for preclinical testing and clinical trials and expect to continue to do so for commercialization. This reliance on thirdparties increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our product candidates or products or that we will not have the quantities we desire or require at an acceptable cost or quality, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.”

All of our drug candidates are organic compounds of low molecular weight, which are often referred to in the biopharmaceutical community as small molecules, but our BiDAC degraders tend to be larger than traditional small molecule therapeutics. We have selected these compounds not only on the basis of their potential clinical activity and tolerability, but also for their relative ease of synthesis and reasonable cost of goods. In particular, CFT7455 and CFT8634 are manufactured using reliable and reproducible synthetic processes from readily available starting materials. The chemistry is amenable to scale up and does not require unusual equipment in the manufacturing process. We expect to continue to develop drug candidates that can be produced cost effectively at contract manufacturing facilities.

Commercialization Plans

We have not yet established our own commercial organization or distribution capabilities because our product candidates are still in clinical development, with our lead candidate, CFT7455, having entered the clinic in June 2021, and our other lead candidates expected to enter the clinic in 2022 or 2023. We have retained full commercialization rights for all of our programs in development other than those subject to our collaboration agreements. If any of our product candidates receive marketing approval, we will need to develop a plan to commercialize them in the United States and other key markets. We

currently anticipate that we would build our own focused, specialized sales and marketing organization to support the commercialization in the United States of product candidates for which we receive marketing approval and that can be commercialized with such capabilities. We expect to utilize a variety of types of collaboration, co-promotion, distribution and other marketing arrangements with one or more third parties to commercialize our product candidates in markets outside the United States or for situations in which a larger sales and marketing organization is required.

As product candidates advance through our pipeline, our commercial plans may change. Some of our research programs target potentially larger indications. Data, the size of the development programs, the size of the target market, the size of a commercial infrastructure and manufacturing needs may all influence our strategies in the United States, Europe and the rest of the world.

Intellectual Property

Our commercial success depends in part upon our ability to secure and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for our protein degradation technologies, including our TORPEDO platform, our solely-owned product candidates, our product candidates co-owned with Roche and know-how related to our business. To protect our core technology and products, we will need to successfully prosecute, defend and, if necessary, enforce our intellectual property rights, including, in particular, our patent rights, preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets and operate without infringing valid and enforceable intellectual property rights of others. For our product candidates, we generally intend to pursue patent protection covering compositions of matter, pharmaceutical compositions, methods of use, including combination therapies, processes of manufacture and process intermediates, where relevant. We continually assess and refine our intellectual property strategies as we develop new technologies and product candidates. We currently plan to file additional patent applications based on our intellectual property strategies, where appropriate, including where we seek to adapt to competition or to improve our business opportunities.

The patent positions for biopharmaceutical companies like us are generally uncertain and can involve complex legal, scientific and factual issues. Further, the laws governing the protection of intellectual property may change over time due to the issuance of new judicial decisions or the passage of new laws, rules or regulations. In addition, the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before a patent is issued and its scope can be reinterpreted and challenged even after issuance. As a result, we cannot guarantee that any of our product candidates will be protected or remain protectable by valid, enforceable patents. We also cannot predict whether the patent applications we are currently pursuing will issue as patents in any particular jurisdiction or whether the claims of any issued patents will provide sufficient proprietary protection from competitors. Any patents that we hold may be challenged, circumvented or invalidated by third parties.

The exclusivity terms of our patents depend upon the laws of the countries in which they are obtained. In the countries in which we currently file, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest date of filing of a non-provisional patent application. The term of a U.S. patent may be extended to compensate for the time required to obtain regulatory approval to sell a drug (referred to as a patent term extension) or by delays encountered during patent prosecution that are caused by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (referred to as patent term adjustment). For example, the Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent term extension for FDA-approved new chemical entity drugs of up to five years beyond the ordinary expiration date of one patent that covers the approved drug or its use. The length of the patent term extension is related to the length of time the drug is under regulatory review and diligence during the review process. Patent term extensions in the United States cannot extend the term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only one patent covering an approved drug, or its method of use may be extended. A similar kind of patent extension, referred to as a Supplementary Protection Certificate, is available in Europe. Legal frameworks may also be available in certain other jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent. We currently intend to seek patent term extensions for our products on any of our issued patents in any jurisdiction where we have a qualifying patent and the extension is available; however, there is no guarantee that the applicable regulatory authorities, including the FDA in the United States, will agree with our assessment of whether extensions of this nature should be granted and, even if granted, the length of these extensions. Further, even if any of our patents are extended or adjusted, those patents, including the extended or adjusted portion of those patents, may be held invalid or unenforceable by a court of final jurisdiction in the United States or a foreign country.

Patents and Patent Applications

As of December 31, 2021, in total, we owned five issued U.S. patents, more than twenty-five U.S. patent applications (which include provisional and U.S. utility applications), nine patent applications filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, and over seventy-five patent applications that are pending in foreign countries.

As of December 31, 2021, as part of our collaboration with Roche, we co-owned two PCT patent applications.

Our patent portfolio is generally organized into two categories: platform patent filings designed to cover inventions generated through our proprietary TORPEDO platform and protein target-specific degrader filings, each of which categories is described in more detail below.

TORPEDO Platform Portfolio

We solely own our platform patent estate, which has been designed using our proprietary TORPEDO platform. As of December 31, 2021, our platform patent portfolio included five issued U.S. patents, fourteen pending U.S. patent applications, two PCT and over thirty-five pending foreign patent applications. This patent portfolio covers a variety of our toolbox ligands that bind to the Cereblon E3 ubiquitin ligase, or CRBN, either alone, as part of a MonoDAC molecule, or as part of a BiDAC molecule that includes a protein ligand to a disease-modifying protein target.

Specifically, this platform portfolio consists of fifteen patent families covering the TORPEDO platform with composition of matter claims directed to various classes of CRBN ligands and degraders derived therefrom, as well as claims to associated methods of use, pharmaceutical compositions and processes of manufacture. Patent applications for several of these patent families have been filed in the United States, China and Europe. Patents in these families, if issued and maintained, will expire between 2037 and 2041, without taking into account potential patent term extensions or adjustments.

Products and Target Portfolio

Our patent applications directed to target-specific degraders, including our product candidates, are focused on composition of matter, pharmaceutical composition, method of use and process of manufacture claims covering novel compounds designed to degrade disease-causing proteins. As of December 31, 2021, we owned twelve U.S. patent applications, seven PCT patent applications and over forty foreign patent applications covering our degrader and product candidates.

Specifically, as of December 31, 2021, we owned three patent families (two U.S. patent applications, one PCT patent application and thirty-five foreign patent applications) presenting composition of matter and pharmaceutical composition claims to compounds that cause the degradation of the IKZF1/3 protein target, as well as associated methods of use to treat cancer and processes of manufacture. Two of these patent families include claims directed to compositions of matter generally and specifically covering CFT7455, one of our lead product candidates and associated methods of use, which if issued and maintained through the payment of all required fees, will expire in 2040 and 2041, respectively, without regard to any possible patent term extensions or adjustments. The third patent family covering our IKZF1/3 degraders is directed to a separate genus than that covered in the previous two families and, if granted and maintained through the payment of all required fees, will expire in 2039, without regard to any possible patent term extensions or adjustments.

As of December 31, 2021, we owned three U.S. patent applications, one PCT patent application and two foreign patent applications with claims directed to compositions of matter covering our BRD9 degraders, including our CFT8634 product candidate, and associated pharmaceutical compositions, methods of use, and processes of manufacture. U.S. and foreign patents claiming priority to these patent applications, if granted and maintained through the payment of all required fees, will expire in 2041 and 2042, without regard to any possible patent term extensions or adjustments.

As of December 31, 2021, we owned one U.S. patent application, two PCT patent applications and five foreign patent applications with claims directed to compositions of matter covering our BRAF degraders, including our CFT1946 product candidate, and associated methods of use, pharmaceutical compositions and processes of manufacture. As of December 31, 2021, these patent applications were -owned with Roche and, as of the date of this filing, exclusive ownership of this intellectual property has been transferred from Roche to us in accordance with the mutual target termination agreement for BRAF that we and Roche entered into in November 2021. U.S. and foreign patents claiming priority to these patent applications, if granted and maintained through the payment of all required fees, will expire between 2041 and 2042, without regard to any possible patent term extensions or adjustments.

As of December 31, 2021, we owned two U.S. patent applications, one PCT patent application and two foreign patent applications, with claims directed to compositions of matter covering our EGFR degraders, including our CFT8919 product candidate, and associated methods of use, pharmaceutical compositions and processes of manufacture. U.S. and foreign patents claiming priority to this patent application, if granted and maintained through the payment of all required fees, will expire between 2040 and 2042, without regard to any possible patent term extensions or adjustments.

As of December 31, 2021, we owned one PCT patent application with claims directed to compositions of matter covering our RET degraders and associated methods of use, pharmaceutical compositions and processes of manufacture. U.S. and foreign patents claiming priority to this patent application, if granted and maintained through the payment of all required fees, will expire in 2041, without regard to any possible patent term extensions or adjustments.

As of December 31, 2021, we owned four U.S. patent applications and one PCT patent application with claims directed to compositions of matter covering degraders to undisclosed targets and associated methods of use, pharmaceutical compositions and processes of manufacture. U.S. and foreign patents claiming priority to these patent applications, if granted

and maintained through the payment of all required fees, will expire in 2042, without regard to any possible patent term extensions or adjustments.

Collaboration Patent Applications Co-owned with Roche

As of December 31, 2021 (giving effect to the assignment of rights in patents related to our BRAF program from Roche to us, as described above), we co-owned with Roche, two PCT patent applications pertaining to our collaboration. Our rights to these patent applications are governed by the Roche Agreement, which is described above.

Target Platform Collaborations

We work with three strategic partners to expand our platform potential: Roche, Calico and Biogen. Under the agreements with each of these partners, we generally assign our solely or co-invented patent rights in development candidates to the applicable partner in exchange for financial benefits in the products under development under those agreements

Trade Secrets

We also rely on trade secrets, technical know-how and continuing innovation to develop and maintain our competitive advantage. Under the agreements we enter into with our employees and consultants who are identified on any company-owned patent applications assign any rights they may have in any such patent application to us. We also rely on confidentiality or other agreements with our employees, consultants and other advisors to protect our proprietary information. Our policy is to require third parties that receive material confidential information to enter into confidentiality or other agreements with us that contain appropriate protections for our confidential and trade secret information.

Trademarks

We own various registered and unregistered trademarks and service marks in the United States and overseas, including C4 THERAPEUTICS, our housemark logo, the name of our TORPEDO platform, and the names of our BIDAC degraders and MONODAC degraders.

Government Regulation

The FDA and comparable regulatory agencies in state and local jurisdictions and in foreign countries impose substantial requirements upon the clinical development, manufacture and marketing of pharmaceutical products. These agencies and other federal, state and local entities regulate research and development activities and the testing, manufacture, quality control, safety, effectiveness, labeling, storage, packaging, recordkeeping, tracking, approval, import, export, distribution, advertising and promotion of our products.

U.S. Government Regulation of Drug Products

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or the FDCA, and its implementing regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with applicable federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval may subject an applicant to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as the FDA’s refusal to approve a pending NDA, withdrawal of an approval, imposition of a clinical hold, issuance of warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement or civil or criminal penalties.

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

• submission to the FDA of an NDA and payment of user fees;

• satisfactory completion of an FDA advisory committee review, if applicable;

The testing and approval process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources.

Preclinical Studies

Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of drug substance chemistry, pharmacology, toxicity and drug product formulation, as well as animal studies to assess potential safety and efficacy. Prior to commencing the first clinical trial with a product candidate, a sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests and preclinical literature, together with manufacturing information, analytical data and any available clinical data or literature, among other required information, to the FDA as part of an IND. Some preclinical studies may continue even after the IND is submitted. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, raises safety concerns or questions about the conduct of the clinical trial 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. As a result, submission of an IND may not result in FDA authorization to commence a clinical trial.

Clinical Trials

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational new drug to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements. A separate submission to the existing IND must be made for each successive clinical trial conducted during product development, as well as amendments to previously submitted clinical trials. Further, an independent IRB for each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial, its informed consent form and other communications to study subjects before the clinical trial commences at that site. The IRB must continue to oversee the clinical trial while it is being conducted, including any changes to the study plans.

Regulatory authorities, an 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, the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the FDA’s or the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to subjects. Some studies also include a data safety monitoring board, which receives special access to unblinded data during the clinical trial and may advise the sponsor to 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.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap.

Typically, clinical trials are designed in consultation with the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities during these development phases. The indications under development can influence the study designs employed during the conduct of clinical trials, such as for a first-line cancer treatment indication which may require head-to-head data demonstrating clinical superiority or non-inferiority to currently available therapies. The timeline for first-line cancer indication development programs may also be longer than for indications sought in third-line treatment or beyond due to a desire for regulatory authorities to expedite access to later-line treatments for those whose cancer has progressed despite available and earlier-line treatments. As such, many new oncology products initially seek an indication in treatment for third-line treatment, a smaller available treatment population in any oncology indication, and any later approvals sought for those products in earlier lines of treatment which target a larger treatment population might require the conduct of additional clinical trials.

The FDA may require, or companies may pursue, additional clinical trials after a product is approved. These so-called Phase 4 trials may be made a condition to be satisfied after approval. The results of Phase 4 trials can confirm the effectiveness of a product candidate and can provide important safety information.

Clinical trials must be conducted under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements, which include the requirements that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing for their participation in any clinical trial and the review and approval of the study by an IRB. Investigators must also provide information to the clinical trial sponsors to allow the sponsors to make specified financial disclosures to the FDA. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the trial, the trial procedures, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the efficacy criteria to be evaluated and a statistical analysis plan. Information about some clinical trials, including a description of the trial and trial results, must be submitted within specific timeframes to the NIH for public dissemination on their website. Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and more frequently if serious adverse events occur.

The manufacture of investigational drugs for the conduct of human clinical trials is subject to cGMP requirements. Investigational drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients imported into the United States are also subject to regulation by the FDA relating to their labeling and distribution. Further, the export of investigational drug products outside of the United States is subject to regulatory requirements of the receiving country, as well as U.S. export requirements under the FDCA. Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and the IRB and more frequently if serious adverse effects occur.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the product candidate, as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the 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, among other things, must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final 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.

Special FDA Expedited Review and Approval Programs

The FDA has various programs, including fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, orphan drug designation, accelerated approval and priority review, which are intended to expedite or simplify the process for the development and FDA review of drugs that are intended for the treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs. The purpose of these programs is to provide important new drugs to patients earlier than under standard FDA review procedures.

Under the fast track program, the sponsor of a new drug candidate may request that FDA designate the drug candidate for a specific indication as a fast track drug concurrent with, or after, the filing of the IND for the drug candidate. To be eligible for a fast track designation, the FDA must determine, based on the request of a sponsor, that a product is intended to treat a serious or life threatening disease or condition and demonstrates the potential to address an unmet medical need. The FDA will determine that a product will fill an unmet medical need if it will provide a therapy where none exists or provide a therapy that may be potentially superior to existing therapy based on efficacy or safety factors. Fast track designation provides additional opportunities for interaction with the FDA’s review team and may allow for rolling review of NDA components before the completed application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA and determines that the schedule is acceptable and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA. However, the FDA’s time period goal for reviewing an application does not begin until the last section of the NDA is submitted. The FDA may decide to rescind the fast track designation if it determines that the qualifying criteria no longer apply.

In addition, a sponsor can request breakthrough therapy designation for a drug if it is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. Drugs designated as breakthrough therapies are eligible for intensive guidance from the FDA on an efficient drug development program, organizational commitment to the development and review of the product, including involvement of senior managers, and, like fast track products, are also eligible for rolling review of the NDA. Both fast track and breakthrough therapy products may be eligible for accelerated approval and/or priority review, if relevant criteria are met.

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a drug product as an “orphan drug” if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition (generally meaning that it affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States or more in cases in which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making a drug product available in the United States

for treatment of the disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product). A company must request orphan product designation before submitting an NDA. If the request is granted, the FDA will disclose the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential use. Orphan product designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.

If a product with orphan status receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation or for a select indication or use within the rare disease or condition for which it was designated, the product generally will be receiving orphan product exclusivity. Orphan product exclusivity means that the FDA may not approve any other applications for the same product for the same indication for seven years, except in certain limited circumstances. If a drug or drug product designated as an orphan product ultimately receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what was designated in its orphan product application, it may not be entitled to exclusivity. Orphan exclusivity will not bar approval of another product under certain circumstances, including if a subsequent product with the same active ingredient for the same indication is shown to be clinically superior to the approved product on the basis of greater efficacy or safety or providing a major contribution to patient care, or if the company with orphan drug exclusivity is not able to meet market demand. Further, the FDA may approve more than one product for the same orphan indication or disease as long as the products contain different active ingredients. Moreover, competitors may receive approval of different products for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity or obtain approval for the same product but for a different indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity.

Under the FDA’s accelerated approval regulations, the FDA may approve a drug for a serious or life threatening illness that provides meaningful therapeutic benefit to patients over existing treatments based upon a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. A drug candidate approved on this basis is subject to rigorous post marketing compliance requirements, including the completion of Phase 4 or post approval clinical trials to confirm the effect on the clinical endpoint. Failure to conduct required post approval studies or confirm a clinical benefit during post marketing studies will allow the FDA to withdraw the drug from the market on an expedited basis. All promotional materials for drug candidates approved under accelerated approval regulations are subject to prior review by the FDA unless otherwise informed by the FDA.

Once an NDA is submitted for a product intended to treat a serious condition, the FDA may assign a priority review designation if FDA determines that the product, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. A priority review means that the goal for the FDA to review an application is six months, rather than the standard review of ten months under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, guidelines. Under the current PDUFA performance goals, these six- and ten-month review periods are measured from the 60-day filing date rather than the receipt date for NDAs for new molecular entities, which typically adds approximately two months to the timeline for review from the date of submission.

Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. In addition, the manufacturer of an investigational drug for a serious or life-threatening disease is required to make available, such as by posting on its website, its policy on responding to requests for expanded access. Furthermore, fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, accelerated approval and priority review do not change the standards for approval and may not ultimately expedite the development or approval process.

NDA Submission and Review by the FDA

Assuming successful completion of the required clinical and preclinical testing, among other items, the results of product development, including chemistry, manufacture and controls, nonclinical studies and clinical trials are submitted to the FDA, along with proposed labeling, as part of an NDA. The submission of an NDA requires payment of a substantial user fee to the FDA. These user fees must be filed at the time of the first submission of the application, even if the application is being submitted on a rolling basis. Fee waivers or reductions are available in some circumstances. One basis for a waiver of the application user fee is if the applicant employs fewer than 500 employees, including employees of affiliates, the applicant does not have an approved marketing application for a product that has been introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce and the applicant, including its affiliates, is submitting its first marketing application.

In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, an NDA or supplement to an NDA for a new active ingredient, indication, dosage form, dosage regimen or route of administration must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and efficacy of the drug for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective.

The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements.

The FDA must refer applications for drugs that contain active ingredients, including any ester or salt of the active ingredients, which have not previously been approved by the FDA to an advisory committee or provide in an action letter a summary of the reasons for not referring it to an advisory committee. The FDA may also refer drugs which present difficult questions of safety, purity or potency to an advisory committee. An advisory committee is typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts who review, evaluate and make 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.

The FDA reviews applications to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe and effective for its intended use and whether the manufacturing controls are adequate to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity. Before approving an NDA, the FDA 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, including contract manufacturers and subcontracts, are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCPs.

Once the FDA receives an application, it has 60 days to review the NDA to determine if it is substantially complete to permit a substantive review, before it accepts the application for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review of the NDA. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under PDUFA, the FDA has set the review goal of 10 months from the 60-day filing date to complete its initial review of a standard NDA for a new molecular entity, or NME, and make a decision on the application. For priority review applications, the FDA has set the review goal of reviewing NME NDAs within six months of the 60-day filing date. Such deadlines are referred to as the PDUFA date. The PDUFA date is only a goal, and the FDA does not always meet its PDUFA dates. The review process and the PDUFA date may also be extended if the FDA requests or the NDA sponsor otherwise provides additional information or clarification regarding the submission during the review period that amends the original application.

Once the FDA’s review of the application is complete, the FDA will issue either a Complete Response Letter, or CRL, or approval letter. A CRL indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete, and the application is not ready for approval. A CRL generally contains a statement of specific conditions that must be met in order to secure final approval of the NDA and may require additional clinical or preclinical testing or other information or analyses in order for the FDA to reconsider the application in the future. Even with the submission of 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 may issue an approval letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications.

The FDA may delay or refuse approval of an NDA if applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied, require additional testing or information, require post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor safety or efficacy of a product and/or impose other conditions, including distribution restrictions or other risk management mechanisms. For example, the FDA may require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, as a condition of approval or following approval to mitigate any identified or suspected serious risks and ensure safe use of the drug. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product or impose additional post-marketing requirements, 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, FDA notification and FDA review and approval. Further, should new safety information arise, additional testing, product labeling or FDA notification may be required.

If regulatory approval of a product is granted, such approval may entail limitations on the indicated uses for which such product may be marketed or may include contraindications, warnings or precautions in the product labeling, which has resulted in a boxed warning. A boxed warning is the strictest warning put in the labeling of prescription drugs or drug products by the FDA when there is reasonable evidence of an association of a serious hazard with the drug. The FDA also may not approve the inclusion of all labeling claims sought by an applicant. Once approved, the FDA may withdraw the product approval if compliance with pre- and post-marketing regulatory standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the marketplace. In addition, the FDA may require Phase 4 post-marketing studies to monitor the effect of approved products and may limit further marketing of the product based on the results of these post-marketing studies.

U.S. Post-Approval Requirements

Any products manufactured or distributed by us pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, advertising, promotion, drug shortage reporting, compliance with any post-approval requirements imposed as a conditional of approval such as Phase 4 clinical trials, REMS and surveillance, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, including adverse experiences.

After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing, annual program fee requirements for approved products, as well as new application fees for supplemental applications with clinical data. Drug manufacturers and their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and to list their drug products and are subject to periodic announced and unannounced inspections by the FDA and these state agencies for compliance with cGMPs and other requirements, which impose procedural and documentation requirements.

Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval or notification before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMPs and specifications and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon the sponsor and any third-party manufacturers that the sponsor may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance.

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 withdrawal of marketing approval, mandatory revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information or other limitations, imposition of post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program, among other consequences.

The FDA closely regulates the marketing and promotion of drugs. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy that are consistent with the FDA approved labeling. Physicians, in their independent professional medical judgement, may prescribe legally available products for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested by us and approved by the FDA. However, manufacturers and third parties acting on their behalf are prohibited from marketing or promoting drugs in a manner inconsistent with the approved labeling. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability.

Failure to comply with any of the FDA’s requirements could result in significant adverse enforcement actions. These include a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as refusal to approve pending applications, license suspension or revocation, withdrawal of an approval, imposition of a clinical hold or termination of clinical trials, warning letters, untitled letters, modification of promotional materials or labeling, product recalls, product seizures or detentions, refusal to allow imports or exports, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, debarment, injunctions, fines, consent decrees, corporate integrity agreements, refusals of government contracts and new orders under existing contracts, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs, restitution, disgorgement or civil or criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment. It is also possible that failure to comply with the FDA’s requirements relating to the promotion of prescription drugs may lead to investigations alleging violations of federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse and other laws, as well as state consumer protection laws. Any of these sanctions could result in adverse publicity, among other adverse consequences.

U.S. Marketing Exclusivity

The FDA provides periods of non-patent regulatory exclusivity, which provides the holder of an approved NDA limited protection from new competition in the marketplace for the innovation represented by its approved drug for a period of three or five years following the FDA’s approval of the NDA. Five years of exclusivity are available to new chemical entities, or NCEs. An NCE is a drug that contains no active moiety that has been approved by the FDA in any other NDA. An active moiety is the molecule or ion, excluding those appended portions of the molecule that cause the drug to be an ester, salt, including a salt with hydrogen or coordination bonds or other noncovalent bonds not involving the sharing of electron pairs between atoms, derivatives, such as a complex (i.e., formed by the chemical interaction of two compounds), chelate (i.e., a chemical compound) or clathrate (i.e., a polymer framework that traps molecules) of the molecule, responsible for the therapeutic activity of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review or approve an Abbreviated New Drug Application, or ANDA, or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company that contains the previously approved active moiety. An ANDA or 505(b)(2) application, however, may be submitted one year before NCE exclusivity expires if a Paragraph IV certification is filed.

Regulation outside the United States

We will be subject to similar foreign laws and regulations concerning the development of our product candidates outside of the United States.

Other Healthcare Laws

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 United States, 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.

In addition, pharmaceutical manufacturers may also be subject to 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.

Coverage and Reimbursement

In the United States and markets in other countries, patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. 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 United States such as Medicare and Medicaid, commercial health insurers and managed care organizations, provide coverage and establish adequate reimbursement levels for, the product. In the United States, 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.

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. 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 United States 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 March 2010, the United States Congress enacted the ACA, which, among other things, included changes to the coverage and payment for products under government health care programs. The ACA included provisions of importance to our potential product candidate that:

• expanded the types of entities eligible for the 340B drug discount program;

• a licensure framework for follow-on biologic products;

There remain numerous judicial, administrative, executive and legislative challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. For example, various portions of the ACA are currently undergoing legal and constitutional challenges in the United States Supreme Court, and the Trump Administration has issued various Executive Orders that eliminated cost sharing subsidies and various provisions that would impose a fiscal burden on states or a cost, fee, tax, penalty or regulatory burden on individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or biologics. Concurrently, Congress has considered legislation that would repeal or repeal and replace all or part of the ACA. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, it has enacted laws that modify certain provisions of the ACA such as removing penalties, effective as of January 1, 2019, for not complying with the ACA’s individual mandate to carry health insurance, eliminating the implementation of certain of the ACA’s mandated fees and increasing the point-of-sale discount that is owed by pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D. On December 14, 2018, a Texas U.S. District Court Judge ruled that the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or TCJA. Additionally, on December 18, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit

upheld the District Court ruling that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and remanded the case back to the District Court to determine whether the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, President Biden issued an Executive Order to initiate a special enrollment period from February 15, 2021 through August 15, 2021 for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace. The Executive Order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, as well as policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. It is unclear how other healthcare reform measures of the Biden administrations or other efforts, if any, to challenge repeal or replace the ACA, will impact our business.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States 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. These reductions went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2030, with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Following the temporary suspension, a 1% payment reduction will occur beginning April 1, 2022 through June 30, 2022, and the 2% payment reduction will resume on July 1, 2022. 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. Further, the 2020 federal spending package permanently eliminated, effective January 1, 2020, the ACA-mandated “Cadillac” tax on high-cost employer-sponsored health coverage and medical device tax and, effective January 1, 2021, also eliminated the health insurer tax.

CCCC US Equity

CCCC · 10-K · period ended 2021-12-31

Item 1. Business.

CCCC US Equity☆

CCCC · 10-K · period ended 2021-12-31

Item 1. Business.

CCCC US Equity