CUE US Equity☆

Item 1A. Risk Factors

We are subject to various risks that may materially harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. This discussion highlights some of the risks that may affect our future operating results. These are the risks and uncertainties we believe are most important for you to consider. We cannot be certain that we will successfully address these risks. If we are unable to address these risks, our business may not grow, our stock price may suffer, and we may be unable to stay in business. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us, which we currently deem immaterial or which are similar to those faced by other companies in our industry or business in general, may also impair our business, prospects, results of operations and financial condition. The risks discussed below include forward-looking statements, and our actual results may differ substantially from those discussed in these forward-looking statements.

Risks Related to Our Business

Our recurring losses from operations raise substantial doubt regarding our ability to continue as a going concern.

We have incurred significant losses since our inception and have never generated revenue or profit from product sales, and it is possible we will never generate revenue or profit from product sales. As of December 31, 2025, we had cash and cash equivalents of $27.1 million. Based on our current operating plans, we believe we will have sufficient funds to meet our obligations into the first quarter of 2027. However, we will need to raise substantial additional capital to fund our future operations and remain as a going concern. There can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain additional funding, including through a combination of equity offerings, collaborations, and other strategic alliances, or other sources on acceptable terms, if at all. To the extent that we raise additional capital through future equity offerings, the ownership interest of common stockholders will be diluted, which dilution may be significant. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to obtain any or sufficient additional funding or that such funding, if available, will be obtainable on terms satisfactory to us. In the event that we are unable to obtain any or sufficient additional funding, there can be no assurance that we will be able to continue as a going concern, and we will be forced to delay, reduce or discontinue our product development programs or consider other various strategic alternatives, including the sale or disposition of our rights or assets or our dissolution and liquidation with little or no return to investors. Any such change in our product development programs or strategic alternatives may have a material adverse effect on the price per share of our common stock.

Moreover, these factors raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern or any actions described above that we may take as a result of our inability to obtain sufficient additional funding may materially and adversely affect the price per share of our common stock, and it may be more difficult for us to obtain financing. If existing or potential collaborators decline to do business with us or potential investors decline to participate in any future financings due to such concerns, our ability to increase our cash position may be limited. The perception that we may not be able to continue as a going concern may cause others to choose not to deal with us due to concerns about our ability to meet our contractual obligations. We could also be forced to sell or dispose of our rights or assets. Any inability to raise adequate funds on commercially reasonable terms could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operation and financial condition, including the possibility that a lack of funds could cause our business to fail, dissolve and liquidate with little or no return to investors.

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, have no history of generating commercial revenue, have a history of operating losses and may never achieve or maintain profitability.

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company. We have a limited operating history, have never generated revenue from product sales, and have a history of losses from operations. As of December 31, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $368.5 million. Our ability to achieve commercial revenue-generating operations and, ultimately, achieve profitability will depend on whether we can obtain additional capital when we need it, complete the development of our technology, receive regulatory approval of our drug product candidates, successfully commercialize our drug product candidates and/or find and/or maintain strategic collaborations that can incorporate our drug product candidates into new or existing drugs which can be successfully commercialized together. There can be no assurance that we will ever generate commercial revenues or achieve or maintain profitability.

We currently do not have, and may never develop, any FDA-approved or commercialized products.

We currently do not have any products approved by the FDA or any other regulatory agency or any commercialized products and thus have never generated commercial revenue from product sales. We have not yet sought to obtain any

39

regulatory approvals for any drug product candidates in the United States or any foreign market. Therefore, any estimated timing for our drug product candidates to be commercialized would be highly speculative.

To date, we have invested substantial resources in an exclusive license with Albert Einstein College of Medicine, or Einstein, that forms the foundation for certain of our drug product candidates and potential applications. For us to develop any products that might ultimately be commercialized, we will have to invest further time and capital in research and product development, regulatory compliance and market development. We and our licensor, prospective business partners and other collaborators may never develop any products that can be commercialized. All of our development efforts will require substantial additional funding, none of which may result in any commercial revenue. Our efforts may not lead to commercially successful products for a number of reasons, including:

•

we and our licensor, prospective business partners and other collaborators may not be able to complete research regarding, and nonclinical and clinical development of, our drug product candidates;

•

regulatory approvals and marketing authorizations may not be achieved for our drug product candidates, or the scope of the approved indication may be narrower than sought;

•

we and our licensor, prospective business partners and other collaborators may experience delays in our development programs, clinical trials and the regulatory approval process;

•

our technology may not prove to be safe and effective in clinical trials or preclinical studies and our drug product candidates may have adverse side effects which outweigh any potential benefit to patients;

•

we may not be able to identify suitable collaborators to complete development or commercialization of our potential products;

•

we may not be able to maintain, protect or expand our portfolio of intellectual property rights, including patents, trade secrets and know-how;

•

any future products that are ultimately approved by the FDA or other regulatory bodies may not be commercially accepted in the marketplace by physicians or patients;

•

any future products that are ultimately approved by the FDA or other regulatory bodies may not be able to be manufactured in commercial quantities or at an acceptable cost;

•

physicians may not receive any reimbursement from third-party payors, or the level of reimbursement may be insufficient to support widespread adoption of any of our future products once approved by the FDA or other regulatory bodies; and

•

rapid technological change may make our technology and drug product candidates obsolete.

Moreover, in July 2024, we determined to prioritize and strategically focus on our autoimmune programs, including CUE-401 and CUE-501, which are currently at a preclinical stage. In April 2025, we licensed differentiated B cell depletion molecules, including CUE-501, to Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, or BI, for research, development and commercialization and in November 2025, we licensed molecules from our CUE-100 series, including CUE-101 and CUE-102, to ImmunoScape Pte. Ltd., or IMSCP, for research, development and commercialization in oncology indications. There can be no assurances that any of these programs covered by our existing or any future collaborations or licenses will be developed further or reach commercialization. We plan to continue to seek third party support through partnerships and collaborations, or alternative funding structures and there is no guarantee that we will be able to do so on favorable terms or at all.

We are substantially dependent on the success of our drug product candidates, and significant additional research and development and clinical testing will be required before we can potentially seek regulatory approval for or commercialize any of our drug product candidates.

Our drug product candidates, including CUE-401 and CUE-501, are all at a preclinical stage. In April 2025, we licensed differentiated B cell depletion molecules, including CUE-501, to BI for research, development and commercialization and in November 2025, we licensed molecules from our CUE-100 series, including CUE-101 and CUE-102, to IMSCP for

40

research, development and commercialization in oncology indications, in combination with a cell therapy product. We retained the rights to the CUE-100 series, including CUE-101 and CUE-102, for use in any manner other than as a component of a cell therapy product for 18 months past the effective date of the IMSCP license. Even though we entered into collaborations to develop differentiated B cell depletion molecules and the CUE-100 series, we expect that additional trials of these product candidates will be required in order to gain approval from the FDA. Therefore, significant additional research and development activity and clinical testing are required before we and our collaborators will have a chance to achieve a commercially viable product from CUE-101, CUE-102, CUE-401, CUE-501 or our other drug product candidates. Our research and development efforts remain subject to all of the risks associated with the development of new biopharmaceutical products and treatments based on immune modulation. Development of the underlying technology may be affected by unanticipated technical or other problems, among other research and development issues, and the possible insufficiency of funds needed in order to complete development of these drug product candidates. Safety, regulatory and efficacy issues, clinical hurdles or other challenges may result in delays and cause us to incur additional expenses that would increase our losses. If we and our collaborators cannot complete, or if we experience significant delays in developing, our potential drug product candidates or products for use in potential commercial applications, particularly after incurring significant expenditures, our business may fail and investors may lose the entirety of their investment.

We have limited experience in conducting clinical trials and no history of commercializing biologic products, which may make it difficult to evaluate the prospects for our future viability.

Our operations to date have been limited to financing and staffing our company, conducting research and developing our core technologies, and identifying and optimizing our lead drug product candidates. Additionally, we have conducted limited clinical testing of two of our drug product candidates. Although we have recruited a team that has experience with clinical trials in the United States, as a company, we have limited experience conducting clinical trials and have not had previous experience commercializing drug product candidates or submitting a Biologic License Application, or BLA, to the FDA or similar submissions to initiate clinical trials or obtain marketing authorization to foreign regulatory authorities. We cannot be certain that our current or any future clinical trials will begin or be completed on time, if at all, or that our planned development programs would be acceptable to the FDA or other regulatory authorities, or that, if regulatory approval is obtained, our drug product candidates can be successfully commercialized. Clinical trials and commercializing our drug product candidates will require significant additional financial and management resources, and reliance on third-party clinical investigators, contract research organizations, or CROs, contract manufacturing organization, or CMOs, consultants and collaborators. Relying on third-party clinical investigators, CROs, CMOs or collaborators may result in delays that are outside of our control.

Furthermore, we may not have the financial resources to continue development of, or to enter into collaborations for, a product candidate if we experience any problems or other unforeseen events that delay or prevent regulatory approval of, or our ability to commercialize, drug product candidates, including:

•

negative or inconclusive results from our IND-enabling studies, clinical trials or the clinical trials of other drug product candidates similar to ours, leading to a decision or requirement to conduct additional preclinical testing or clinical trials or abandon a program;

•

delays in submitting INDs or comparable foreign applications or delays or failure in obtaining the necessary approvals from regulators to commence a clinical trial, or a suspension or termination of a clinical trial once commenced;

•

conditions imposed by the FDA or a foreign regulatory authority regarding the number, scope or design of our clinical trials;

•

delays in enrolling patients in clinical trials;

•

high drop-out rates of patients;

•

inadequate supply or quality of clinical trial materials or other supplies necessary to conduct our clinical trials;

•

greater than anticipated clinical trial costs;

•

poor effectiveness or unacceptable side effects of our drug product candidates during clinical trials;

41

•

unfavorable FDA or other regulatory agency inspection and review of a clinical trial site;

•

difficulty in establishing or managing relationships with CROs, CMOs, and clinical investigators;

•

failure of our third-party contractors or investigators to comply with regulatory requirements or otherwise meet their contractual obligations in a timely manner, or at all;

•

serious and unexpected drug-related side effects or other safety issues experienced by participants in our clinical trials or by individuals using drugs similar to our drug product candidates;

•

delays and changes in regulatory requirements, policy and guidelines, including the imposition of additional regulatory oversight around clinical testing generally or with respect to our technology in particular; or

•

varying interpretations of data by the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities.

In addition, policies of the FDA and other regulatory authorities with respect to clinical trials may change and additional government regulations may be enacted. For example, in December 2022, with the passage of the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act, or FDORA, Congress required sponsors to develop and submit a diversity action plan, or DAP, for each Phase 3 clinical trial or any other “pivotal study” of a new drug or biological product. These plans are meant to encourage the enrollment of more diverse patient populations in late-stage clinical trials of FDA-regulated products. Specifically, action plans must include the sponsor’s goals for enrollment, the underlying rationale for those goals, and an explanation of how the sponsor intends to meet them. In addition to these requirements, the legislation directed the FDA to issue new guidance on DAPs. In June 2024, the FDA issued draft guidance outlining the general requirements for DAPs. Unlike most guidance documents issued by the FDA, the DAP guidance when finalized will have the force of law because FDORA specifically dictates that the form and manner for submission of DAPs are specified in FDA guidance. On January 27, 2025, in response to an Executive Order issued by President Trump on January 21, 2025, on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs, the FDA removed this draft guidance from its website. That action, along with similar actions by the Trump Administration to remove many other healthcare webpages, is currently the subject of ongoing litigation. On July 3, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the Trump Administration’s actions to remove these webpages, including the draft DAP guidance, is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act, or the APA. The court ordered the restoration of many of these webpages. In late July 2025, the FDA restored the draft DAP guidance to its website with a statement that “information on this page may be modified and/or removed in the future subject to the terms of the court’s order and implemented consistent with applicable law.” Accordingly, in light of these ongoing actions, there is considerable uncertainty surrounding the draft DAP guidance and how the FDA will consider DAPs in connection with its review of NDAs and BLAs.

Similarly, the regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the EU recently evolved. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation, or CTR, which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive, became applicable on January 31, 2022. While the Clinical Trials Directive required a separate clinical trial application, or CTA, to be submitted in each member state, to both the competent national health authority and an independent ethics committee, the CTR introduces a centralized process and only requires the submission of a single application to all member states concerned. The CTR allows sponsors to make a single submission to both the competent authority and an ethics committee in each member state, leading to a single decision per member state. The assessment procedure of the CTA has been harmonized as well, including a joint assessment by all member states concerned, and a separate assessment by each member state with respect to specific requirements related to its own territory, including ethics rules. Each member state’s decision is communicated to the sponsor via the centralized EU portal. Once the CTA is approved, clinical study development may proceed. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies governing clinical trials, our development plans may be impacted.

Our current or any future clinical trials or those of our collaborators may reveal significant adverse events, toxicities or other side effects not seen in our preclinical studies and may result in a safety profile that could inhibit or prevent regulatory approval or market acceptance of any of our drug product candidates.

In order to obtain marketing approval for any of our biologic drug product candidates, we must demonstrate the safety, purity, and efficacy of the product candidate for the relevant clinical indication or indications through preclinical studies and clinical trials as well as additional supporting data. If our drug product candidates are associated with undesirable side effects in preclinical studies or clinical trials or have characteristics that are unexpected, we may need to interrupt, delay or abandon their development or limit development to more narrow uses or subpopulations in which the undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective.

42

We have completed Phase 1 clinical trials for our most advanced clinical stage asset, CUE-101, and a Phase 1 clinical trial for CUE-102, but otherwise we have not conducted any clinical trials. We have conducted various preclinical studies of our drug product candidates, but we do not know the predictive value of these studies for humans, and we cannot guarantee that any positive results in preclinical studies will successfully translate to human patients. It is not uncommon to observe results in human clinical trials that are unexpected based on preclinical testing, and many drug product candidates fail in clinical trials despite promising preclinical results. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their drug product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval for their products. Human patients in clinical trials may suffer significant adverse events or other side effects not observed in our preclinical studies, including, but not limited to, immunogenic responses, organ toxicities such as liver, heart or kidney or other tolerability issues or possibly even death. The observed potency and kinetics of our drug product candidates in preclinical studies may not be observed in human clinical trials. If clinical trials of our drug product candidates fail to demonstrate efficacy to the satisfaction of regulatory authorities or do not otherwise produce positive results, we may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of our drug product candidates.

If significant adverse events or other side effects are observed in any of our current or future clinical trials, we may have difficulty recruiting patients to the clinical trial, patients may drop out of our trial, or we may be required to abandon the trial or our development efforts of that product candidate altogether. We, the FDA or other applicable regulatory authorities, or an Institutional Review Board may suspend clinical trials of a product candidate at any time for various reasons, including a belief that subjects in such trials are being exposed to unacceptable health risks or adverse side effects. Some potential therapeutics developed in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries that initially showed therapeutic promise in early-stage studies have later been found to cause side effects that prevented their further development. Even if the side effects do not preclude the drug from obtaining or maintaining marketing approval, undesirable side effects may inhibit market acceptance of the approved product due to its tolerability as compared to other therapies. Any of these developments could materially harm our business, financial condition and prospects.

Further, if any of our drug product candidates obtains marketing approval, toxicities associated with our drug product candidates may also develop after such approval and lead to a requirement to conduct additional clinical safety trials, additional warnings being added to the labeling, significant restrictions on the use of the product or the withdrawal of the product from the market. We cannot predict whether our drug product candidates will cause toxicities in humans that would preclude or lead to the revocation of regulatory approval based on preclinical studies or clinical testing. However, any such event, were it to occur, would cause substantial harm to our business and financial condition and would result in the diversion of our management’s attention.

Success in preclinical studies or early clinical trials may not be indicative of results obtained in later trials.

Results from preclinical studies or early clinical trials are not necessarily predictive of future clinical trial results, and interim results of a clinical trial are not necessarily indicative of final results. Our drug product candidates may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy in clinical development despite demonstrating positive results in preclinical studies or having successfully advanced through initial clinical trials or preliminary stages of clinical trials. There can be no assurance that the results seen in preclinical studies for any of our drug product candidates ultimately will result in success in clinical trials or that results seen in Phase 1 or 2 trials will be replicated in Phase 3 trials.

There is a high failure rate for drugs and biologic products proceeding through clinical trials. Many companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials even after achieving promising results in preclinical testing and earlier-stage clinical trials. Data obtained from preclinical and clinical activities are subject to varying interpretations, which may delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. In addition, we may experience regulatory delays or rejections as a result of many factors, including changes in regulatory policy or requirements during the period of our drug product candidate development. Any such delays could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We plan to continue to seek collaborations or strategic alliances. However, we may not be able to establish such relationships, and relationships we have established may not provide the expected benefits.

On November 6, 2018, we entered into a Collaboration, License and Option Agreement, as amended from time to time, or the LG Chem Collaboration Agreement, with LG Chem Ltd., or LG Chem, for the development of CUE-101 and CUE-102 Immuno-STATs. Pursuant to the LG Chem Collaboration Agreement, we have granted certain exclusive license rights to LG Chem in Australia and in certain countries in Asia and LG Chem has agreed to provide certain services to us and

43

to make payments to us that include licensing fees, milestone payments and sales royalties. This agreement does not commit LG Chem to a long-term relationship, and LG Chem may disengage with us at any time.

In furtherance of pursuing strategic options pertaining to CUE-101, on March 11, 2025, we regained our rights to the LG Chem Territory for the CUE-101 program, which had previously been licensed to LG Chem, and LG Chem terminated all of its rights to the same program. We also agreed to make future payments to LG Chem, if and when one or more potential scenarios related to the CUE-101 program occur, up to a predetermined aggregate amount. LG Chem continues to maintain its interest and rights in the CUE-102 program, targeting WT1 expressing cancers, pursuant to the LG Chem Collaboration Agreement.

On February 22, 2023, we entered into a strategic collaboration agreement, or the Ono Collaboration and Option Agreement, with Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., or Ono, to further develop CUE-401 and provide dedicated resources and capabilities to help advance CUE-401 toward the clinic. On March 11, 2025, we and Ono agreed to terminate the Ono Collaboration and Option Agreement, effective as of March 6, 2025 . Effective upon termination, we regained worldwide development and commercialization rights for CUE-401 from Ono. At such time, the agreement had no further force or effect with the exception of certain customary provisions which were intended to survive termination and expiration of the agreement.

In July 2024, we determined to prioritize and strategically focus on our autoimmune programs, including CUE-401 and CUE-501.

On April 10, 2025, we entered into a Collaboration and License Agreement, or the BI Collaboration and License Agreement, with BI to research, develop and commercialize differentiated B cell depletion molecules, including CUE-501. Under the terms of the BI Collaboration and License Agreement, we and BI will conduct collaborative research focused on CUE-501 during a four-year period or, if earlier, the completion of activities under the research plans, or the BI Research Term. In addition to, or instead of, CUE-501, BI may elect, at its sole discretion, to include additional or alternative compounds targeted at B cell depletion. BI will have an exclusive, royalty-bearing, worldwide, sublicensable license, under our applicable patents and know-how, to develop, manufacture and commercialize such compounds and their derivatives, or BI Licensed Products, for all uses, and BI shall be responsible for all further research, preclinical and clinical development, manufacturing, regulatory approvals, and commercialization of BI Licensed Products at its expense. During the BI Research Term, we are prohibited from developing or commercializing any molecule for applications in B cell depletion.

And lastly, on November 6, 2025, IMSCP exercised its option to obtain licenses to research, develop and commercialize molecules from the CUE-100 series, including CUE-101 and CUE-102, subject to certain exclusions, for all oncology indications pursuant to a Collaboration and License Agreement, effective November 6, 2025, between us and IMSCP, or the IMSCP Collaboration and License Agreement. The licenses provided pursuant to the IMSCP Collaboration and License Agreement include a co-exclusive development license for five years or, if longer, for so long as IMSCP has a specified number of CUE-100 series molecules under active development and, pursuant to which, we retain non-exclusive research rights to support our other programs, or the co-exclusive development license. We also retained our rights to the CUE-100 series, including CUE-101 and CUE-102, for use in any manner other than as a component of a cell therapy product for 18 months past the effective date of the IMSCP Collaboration and License Agreement. The licenses include an exclusive commercial license to IMSCP for any CUE-100 series molecule that IMSCP advances to IND-enabling studies while the co-exclusive development license is in effect. The licensed series of molecules will be further developed and potentially commercialized by IMSCP.

We plan to continue to seek additional strategic alliances or collaborations with other third parties that we believe will complement or augment our development and commercialization efforts with respect to our drug product candidates and any future drug product candidates that we may develop. In addition, we currently do not have sales, marketing, manufacturing or distribution capabilities or arrangements. In order to commercialize our potential products, we plan to seek development and marketing partners or sublicensees to obtain necessary marketing, manufacturing and distribution capabilities.

Any of these relationships may require us to incur non-recurring and other charges, give up certain rights relating to our intellectual property and research and development activities, increase our near and long-term expenditures, issue securities that dilute our existing stockholders, issue debt which may require liens on our assets and which will increase our monthly expense obligations, or disrupt our management and business. Moreover, we may not be successful in our efforts to establish additional strategic partnerships or collaborations for our drug product candidates because they may be deemed to be at too early of a stage of development for collaborative effort and third parties may not view our drug product candidates as having the requisite clinical and/or commercial potential based on current or future demonstrated safety, purity, and efficacy. If we are unable to maintain existing strategic partnerships or collaborations, or establish additional strategic partnerships or

44

collaborations, to develop our drug product candidates, the costs for us to independently develop our drug product candidates may be higher than we currently anticipate, which could materially harm our business prospects, financial condition and results of operation.

Further, collaborations involving our drug product candidates are subject to numerous risks, which may include the following:

•

our collaborators may have significant discretion in determining the efforts and resources that they will apply to our collaboration as compared to their other then-existing collaborations;

•

our collaborators may not pursue development and commercialization of our drug product candidates or may not elect to continue or renew development or commercialization of our programs based on clinical trial results, changes in their strategic focus due to the acquisition of competitive products, availability of funding or other external factors, such as a business combination that diverts resources or creates competing priorities;

•

our collaborators may delay clinical trials, provide insufficient funding for a clinical trial, stop a clinical trial, abandon a product candidate, repeat or conduct new clinical trials, or require a new formulation of a product candidate for clinical testing;

•

our collaborators could independently develop, or develop with third parties, products that compete directly or indirectly with our drug product candidates;

•

a collaborator with marketing and distribution rights to one or more products may not commit sufficient resources to the marketing and distribution of each of our potential products;

•

our collaborators may not properly maintain or defend our intellectual property rights in accordance with the terms of our contractual arrangements with them or may use our intellectual property or proprietary information in a way that gives rise to actual or threatened litigation that could jeopardize or invalidate our intellectual property or proprietary information or expose us to other potential liability;

•

disputes may arise between us and a collaborator that cause the delay or termination of the research, development or commercialization of our drug product candidates, or that result in costly litigation or arbitration that diverts our management's attention and our other resources;

•

collaborations have been, and in the future, additional collaborations may be, terminated and, if terminated, may result in a need for additional capital to pursue further development or commercialization of the applicable drug product candidates; and

•

our collaborators may own or co-own intellectual property covering our potential products that results from our collaboration with them, and in such case, we would not have the exclusive right to commercialize such intellectual property without our collaborators’ involvement and consent.

As a result, we may not be able to realize the benefit of collaboration agreements, strategic partnerships or licenses of our technology or potential products, which could delay our product development timelines or otherwise adversely affect our business. We also cannot be certain that, following a strategic transaction or license, we will achieve sufficient revenue, net income or other benefits to justify such transaction. Any delays in entering into new collaborations or strategic partnership agreements related to our drug product candidates could delay the development and commercialization of our drug product candidates, which would harm our business prospects, financial condition, and results of operations.

Our collaboration agreements with each of LG Chem and BI contain exclusivity provisions that restrict our research and development activities.

We have granted to LG Chem under the LG Chem Collaboration Agreement an exclusive license to develop, manufacture and commercialize CUE-102 in the LG Chem Territory. Under the LG Chem Collaboration Agreement, we will engineer the selected Immuno-STAT for up to three alleles, which are expected to include the predominant alleles in the LG Chem Territory, while LG Chem will establish a chemistry, manufacturing and controls, or CMC, process for the development and commercialization of Drug Product Candidates.

45

We have granted to BI under the BI Collaboration and License Agreement an exclusive, royalty-bearing, worldwide, sublicensable license, under our applicable patents and know-how, to develop, manufacture and commercialize CUE-501, and any additional or alternative compounds targeted at B cell depletion compounds and their derivatives, for all uses. As such, during the BI Research Term, we are prohibited from developing or commercializing any molecule for applications in B cell depletion.

These restrictions on our development, manufacturing, and commercialization activities could impact our ability to successfully develop certain drug product candidates, which could harm our future business prospects for commercializing drugs for those drug product candidates.

We may not be successful in our efforts to identify additional drug product candidates. Due to our limited resources and access to capital, we must prioritize the development of certain drug product candidates; these decisions may prove to be wrong and may adversely affect our business.

In July 2024, we decided to strategically focus on our autoimmune programs, including CUE-401 and CUE-501.

Although we may explore other therapeutic opportunities, in addition to the drug product candidates that we are currently developing, we may fail to identify successful drug product candidates for clinical development for a number of reasons. If we fail to identify additional potential drug product candidates, our business could be materially harmed.

Research programs to pursue the development of our drug product candidates for additional indications and to identify new drug product candidates and disease targets require substantial technical, financial and human resources whether or not they are ultimately successful. Our research programs may initially show promise in identifying potential indications and/or drug product candidates, yet fail to yield results for clinical development for a number of reasons, including:

•

the research methodology used may not be successful in identifying potential indications and/or drug product candidates;

•

our key platform technology, Immuno-STAT BiologicsTM, may not adequately enable us to design, discover and validate drug product candidates;

•

potential drug product candidates may, after further study, be shown to have harmful adverse effects or other characteristics that indicate they are unlikely to be effective drugs; or

•

it may take greater human and financial resources than we possess to identify additional therapeutic opportunities for our drug product candidates or to develop suitable potential drug product candidates through internal research programs, thereby limiting our ability to develop, diversify and expand our drug portfolio.

Because we have limited financial and human resources, we intend to initially focus on research programs and drug product candidates for a limited set of indications. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other drug product candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential or a greater likelihood of success. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities.

Accordingly, there can be no assurance that we will ever be able to identify additional therapeutic opportunities for our drug product candidates or to develop suitable potential drug product candidates through internal research programs, which could materially adversely affect our future growth and prospects. We may focus our efforts and resources on potential drug product candidates or other potential programs that ultimately prove to be unsuccessful.

46

We face significant competition from other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, and our operating results will suffer if we fail to compete effectively. Our competitors may be able to develop other compounds or drugs that are able to achieve similar or better results than our drug product candidates.

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by intense competition and rapid innovation. Our competitors may be able to develop other compounds or drugs that are able to achieve similar or better results than our drug product candidates. Our competitors may include major multinational pharmaceutical companies, established biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies, and universities and other research institutions. Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial, technical and other resources than we have, such as a larger research and development staff and experienced marketing and manufacturing organizations, established relationships with CROs and other collaborators, as well as established sales forces. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large, established companies. Mergers and acquisitions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated in our competitors. Competition may increase further as a result of advances in the commercial applicability of technologies and greater availability of capital for investment in these industries. Our competitors, either alone or with collaborative partners, may succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing on an exclusive basis drug or biologic products that are more effective, safer, more easily commercialized or less costly than our drug product candidates or may develop proprietary technologies or secure patent protection and, in turn, exclude us from technologies that we may need for the development of our technologies and potential products.

Immunotherapy technologies are advancing at a rapid pace and we anticipate competing with companies developing cytokine-based therapies (e.g., Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Nektar Therapeutics, Sanofi S.A., TRex Bio and RegCell), regulatory T cell therapies (e.g., Coya Therapeutics, Quell Therapeutics, EVOQ Therapeutics, and Sonoma Biotherapeutics), many of which have significantly greater financial and other resources than we currently have.

Even if we obtain regulatory approval of any of our drug product candidates, we may not be the first to market, and that may negatively affect the price or demand for our drug product candidates. Additionally, we may not be able to implement our business plan if the acceptance of our drug product candidates is inhibited by price competition or the reluctance of physicians to switch from existing methods of treatment to our drug product candidates, or if physicians switch to other new drug or biologic products or choose to reserve our drug product candidates for use in limited circumstances. Furthermore, a competitor could obtain orphan product exclusivity from the FDA with respect to such competitor’s product. If such competitor product is determined to be the same product as one of our drug product candidates, we may be prevented from obtaining approval from the FDA for such product candidate for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, and we may be subject to similar restrictions under non-U.S. regulations.

If we lose key management personnel, or if we fail to recruit additional highly skilled personnel, our ability to identify and develop new or next generation drug product candidates will be impaired, could result in loss of markets or market share and could make us less competitive.

We are highly dependent upon the principal members of our management team and other members of our scientific and clinical advisory team. Our team has significant experience and knowledge of oncology drug discovery and development, T cell modulation, protein biochemistry and immunological assays, and the loss of any current or future team member could impair our ability to design, identify, and develop new intellectual property and drug product candidates and new scientific or product ideas. Additionally, if we lose the services of any of these persons, we would likely be forced to expend significant time and money in the pursuit of replacements, which may result in a delay in the development of our drug product candidates and the implementation of our business plan and plan of operations and diversion of our management’s attention. We can give no assurance that we could find satisfactory replacements for our current and future key scientific and management employees on terms that would not be unduly expensive or burdensome to us.

To induce valuable personnel to remain at our company, in addition to salary and cash incentives, we have granted stock options and restricted stock units that vest over time. Despite our efforts to retain valuable employees, members of our management, scientific and development teams may terminate their employment with us on short notice. Although we have employment agreements with our key employees, these employment agreements provide for at-will employment, which means that these employees could leave our employment at any time, for or without cause. We do not maintain “key man” insurance policies on the lives of these individuals or the lives of any of our other employees. Our success also depends on our ability to continue to attract, retain and motivate highly skilled junior, mid-level and senior managers as well as junior, mid-level and senior scientific and medical and scientific personnel.

47

Our internal computer systems, or those used by third-party CROs, manufacturers or other contractors or consultants, may fail or suffer security breaches.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems and those of our future CROs, manufacturers and other contractors and consultants are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures, cyberattacks or cyber-intrusions, loss of funds or information from phishing or other fraudulent schemes, attachments to emails, persons inside our organization, or persons with access to systems inside our organization or those with whom we do business. The risk of a security breach or disruption, particularly through cyber-attacks or cyber intrusion, including by computer hackers, foreign governments, and cyber terrorists, has generally increased as the number, intensity and sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions from around the world have increased. Increased security threats and more sophisticated cybercrimes and cyberattacks pose a potential risk to the security and availability of our internal computer systems, networks and services, including those used by third-party CROs, manufacturers or other contractors or consultants, as well as the confidentiality, availability and integrity of our data and the data of potential trial participants or patients, employees and others. Although to our knowledge we have not experienced any such material system failure or security breach to date, if such an event were to occur, it could result in a material disruption of our development programs and our business operations. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from future clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information (such as individually identifiable health information), we could incur significant liabilities and the further development and commercialization of our drug product candidates could be delayed. In addition, the foreign, federal and state regulatory environment surrounding information security and privacy is increasingly demanding, with frequent imposition of new and changing requirements. Compliance with changes in privacy and information security laws and standards may result in significant expense due to increased investment in technology and the development of new operational processes.

Changes in and uncertainty surrounding U.S. and international trade policies may adversely impact our business and operating results.

In the spring of 2025, the U.S. government initiated a series of tariff-related actions against U.S. trading partners. On April 2, 2025, an executive order announced a “baseline” reciprocal tariff of 10% on all U.S. trading partners effective April 5, 2025, and higher individualized reciprocal tariffs on 57 countries (with certain product exemptions for pharmaceutical-related products, among others). Previously, the U.S. government had imposed a 25% tariff on Canada and Mexico for goods not covered by the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, and tariffs due to drug trafficking equaling 20% on imports from China. In response, several countries threatened retaliatory measures, including Canada and China, which then imposed retaliatory tariffs. Prior to when the country-specific reciprocal tariffs were scheduled to take effect, the U.S. delayed the effective date of such tariffs for all countries except China to August 1, 2025. Later, the United States and China reached a framework agreement that ultimately resulted in the suspension of the higher reciprocal tariffs on China until November 10, 2025. Shortly before that expiration date, the United States and China reached a one-year agreement with an expiration of November 10, 2026, that includes the continued suspension of the heightened reciprocal tariffs on China and delayed enforcement of new U.S. export rules targeting affiliates of blacklisted firms.

Since the April reciprocal tariffs announcement, the EU, Japan, South Korea, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, among others, have reached deals with the U.S. that include reduced tariff rates to varying levels and other measures. On July 31, 2025, the U.S. administration issued an executive order detailing new reciprocal tariff rates for individual countries that took effect on August 7, 2025. The deals with the EU, Japan, South Korea, Switzerland (and Liechtenstein), the UK and others cap pharmaceutical tariffs at 15%. In addition, an agreement with Malaysia provides a zero percent tariff exemption for pharmaceutical products that are not patented in the United States and are used in pharmaceutical applications, and an agreement with Switzerland and Lichenstein caps tariffs on pharmaceuticals imported from those two countries at 15%. Finally, an agreement with Taiwan concluded on January 15, 2026 eliminates tariffs on generic pharmaceuticals and their active ingredients imported from Taiwan.

The reciprocal tariffs and the fentanyl tariffs were imposed pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. These tariffs were found to be unconstitutional by multiple federal courts in the spring and summer of 2025. On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court held that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, invalidating both the reciprocal tariffs and the drug trafficking tariffs. Shortly thereafter, the President issued a new Executive Order revoking the IEEPA tariffs, and Customs and Border Protection ceased collecting the tariffs as of 12:01 a.m. on February 24, 2026. At the same time, however, the Trump Administration imposed a new 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, effective February 24, 2026. Pursuant to the statute, absent an extension by Congress, these tariffs will expire in 150 days on

48

July 24, 2026. For those countries that have concluded trade deals with the United States, the tariff rates agreed to – including with regard to pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients – have now reverted to 10% until July 24, 2026.

Like the IEEPA tariffs, pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients are exempt from the Section 122 tariffs along with a list of other products. The administration has announced that it also plans to initiate new investigations on “most major trading partners” under Section 301 of the same act, which will likely lead to additional tariffs.

Neither the Supreme Court’s decision nor the Executive Order revoking the IEEPA tariffs addressed refunds, leaving the issue to renewed proceedings before the U.S. Court of International Trade, where importers may need to pursue administrative remedies and/or litigation amid continued uncertainty.

Sustained uncertainty about, or the further escalation of, trade and political tensions between the United States and China could result in a disadvantageous research and manufacturing environment in China, particularly for U.S.-based companies, including retaliatory restrictions that hinder or potentially inhibit our ability to rely on CMOs and other service providers that operate in China.

Separately, in April 2025, the Department of Commerce initiated an investigation under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 into the impact on U.S. national security of the imports of pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients, including finished drug products, medical countermeasures, critical inputs such as active pharmaceutical ingredients, and key starting materials, and derivative products of those items. On September 25, 2025, the U.S. administration announced that, beginning October 1, 2025, all branded or patented drugs imported in the U.S. would face a 100% tariff. At the same time, the administration indicated that these tariffs could be avoided by building pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities in the U.S. Thereafter, the administration delayed the October 1, 2025 effective date of the tariffs on branded or patented pharmaceutical products announcing that the administration had now “begun preparing” tariffs on manufacturers that do not build in the U.S. or enter into a most-favored-nation drug pricing agreement with the administration.

As a result of changes in tariffs that have been announced and/or implemented, and the underlying uncertainty currently surrounding international trade, we could experience a negative impact to our costs of materials and production processes, and supply chain disruptions and delays as a result of any new tariff policies or trade restrictions. If we are unable to obtain necessary raw materials or product components in sufficient quantity and in a timely manner due to disruptions in the global supply chain caused by macroeconomic events and conditions, the research, development, testing and clinical trials of our product candidates may be delayed or infeasible, and regulatory approval or commercial launch of any resulting product may be delayed or not obtained, which could significantly harm our business. We cannot yet predict the effect of the U.S. tariffs on imports, or the extent to which other countries will impose quotas, duties, tariffs, taxes or other similar restrictions upon imports or exports in the future, nor can we predict future trade policy or the terms of any renegotiated trade agreements and their impact on our business.

Further, some of our collaborators and suppliers are located in China. Trade tensions and conflicts between the United States and China have been escalated in recent years and, as such, we are exposed to the possibility of product supply disruption and increased costs and expenses in the event of changes to the laws, rules, regulations and policies of the governments of the United States or China, or due to geopolitical unrest and unstable economic conditions.

For example, in February 2024, U.S. lawmakers called for investigations into and the imposition of possible economic sanctions against Chinese biotechnology companies WuXi AppTec and WuXi Biologics over alleged ties to the Chinese military. Subsequently, in December 2025, as part of the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act, President Trump signed into law the BIOSECURE Act. Under the Act, US government agencies cannot (1) buy or obtain biotechnology equipment or services provided by biotechnology companies of concern (“BCCs”); (2) enter into, extend, or renew a contract with any entity using biotechnology equipment or services provided by a BCC to perform a government contract; or (3) expend loan or grant funds for biotechnology equipment or services provided by a BCC, whether directly or through a loan or grant recipient. The Act does not name specific companies as BCCs but treats any company on the Department of Defense 1260H list of “Chinese military companies” as a BCC.

On December 18, 2025, the Chairs of multiple Senate and House committees, including the House Select Committee on China, sent a letter to the Department of Defense recommending that WuXi AppTec, WuXi Biologics, and WuXi XDC be added to the 1260H list, which would make all of those entities BCCs. The 1260H list was updated by the Department of Defense in January 2024 and January 2025. On February 13, 2026, the Department of Defense published an updated list, which included WuXi AppTec but then abruptly withdrew the list. The implications of this action remain unclear.

49

Changes in tax laws or in their implementation or interpretation could adversely affect our business and financial condition.

Income, sales, use or other tax laws, statutes, rules, or regulations could be enacted or amended at any time, which could affect our business or financial condition, including causing potentially adverse impacts to our effective tax rate, tax liabilities, and cash tax obligations. For example, the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, was signed into law in August 2022, and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, or OBBBA, was signed into law in July 2025. The IRA introduced new tax provisions, including a one percent excise tax imposed on certain stock repurchases by publicly traded companies. The one percent excise tax generally applies to any acquisition of stock by the publicly traded company (or certain of its affiliates) from a stockholder of the company in exchange for money or other property (other than stock of the company itself), subject to a de minimis exception. Thus, the excise tax could apply to certain transactions that are not traditional stock repurchases. The OBBBA contains numerous tax provisions that we are currently in the process of evaluating, and which may significantly affect our business or financial condition. The recent changes under the OBBBA include tax rate extensions and changes to the business interest deduction limitation, the expensing of domestic research and development expenditures (in contrast to the continued capitalization and amortization of foreign research and development expenditures), the bonus depreciation deduction rules, and the international tax framework. Regulatory guidance under the IRA, the OBBBA, and other tax-related legislation is and continues to be forthcoming, and such guidance could ultimately increase or lessen the impact of these laws on our business and financial condition. In addition, it is uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to changes to federal tax legislation.

War, terrorism, other acts of violence, or natural or manmade disasters may affect the markets in which we operate, our patients and resources required in our research and development activities.

Our business may be adversely affected by political instability, disruption or destruction in a geographic region in which we operate, regardless of cause, including war, terrorism, riot, civil insurrection or social unrest, and natural or manmade disasters, including famine, flood, fire, earthquake, storm or pandemic events and spread of disease, and geopolitical conflicts. Such events may affect our business by increasing prices for resources required in our research and development activities or limiting our access to patients for our clinical trials which may delay our progress on one or more of our clinical or preclinical drug product candidates.

Risks Related to Our Reliance on Third Parties

We rely on third parties to conduct our clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, we may not be able to successfully complete development of, obtain regulatory approval for, or commercialize our drug product candidates and our business could be substantially harmed.

We rely upon and plan to continue to rely upon third-party CROs for execution of our clinical trials, and control only certain aspects of their activities. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards and our reliance on the CROs does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and our CROs, including our CMO Catalent Pharma Solutions, LLC, or Catalent, are required to comply with FDA laws and regulations regarding current good clinical practice, or GCP, for all of our products in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce GCP through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we or any of our CROs fail to comply with applicable GCP, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot be certain that upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with GCP regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with product produced under current good manufacturing practices, or GMP, regulations. While we work closely with our CMOs on the manufacturing process for our drug product candidates, including quality audits, we generally do not control the implementation of the manufacturing process of, and are completely dependent on, our CMOs for compliance with GMP regulatory requirements and for manufacture of both active drug substances and finished drug products. In addition, portions of the clinical trials for our drug product candidates may be conducted outside of the United States, which will make it more difficult for us to monitor CROs and perform visits of our clinical trial sites and will force us to rely heavily on CROs to ensure the proper and timely conduct of our clinical trials and compliance with applicable regulations, including GCP. Failure to comply with applicable regulations in the conduct of the clinical trials for our drug product candidates may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process.

50

Some of our CROs have an ability to terminate their respective agreements with us if, among other reasons, it can be reasonably demonstrated that the safety of the subjects participating in our clinical trials warrants such termination, if we make a general assignment for the benefit of our creditors or if we are liquidated. If any of our relationships with these third-party CROs terminate for any reason, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs or to do so on commercially reasonable terms. In addition, our CROs are not our employees, and except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such CROs, we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our preclinical and clinical programs. If CROs do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols, regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or successfully commercialize our drug product candidates. Consequently, our results of operations and the commercial prospects for our drug product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase substantially and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed significantly.

Switching or adding additional CROs involves additional cost and requires management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new CRO commences work. As a result, delays occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines. Though we carefully manage our relationships with our CROs, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and prospects.

We rely completely on third parties to manufacture our preclinical and clinical drug supplies for our drug product candidates.

We rely completely on third parties to manufacture clinical drug supplies for our drug product candidates. If we were to experience an unexpected loss of supply of our drug product candidates for any reason, whether as a result of manufacturing, supply or storage issues or otherwise, we could experience disruptions in supply or delays, suspensions or terminations of clinical trials or regulatory submissions. We do not currently have nor do we plan to acquire the infrastructure or capability internally to manufacture our preclinical and clinical drug supplies and we lack the resources and the capability to manufacture any of our drug product candidates on a clinical or commercial scale. The facilities used by our contract manufacturers or other third-party manufacturers to manufacture our drug product candidates, including Catalent and PCI San Diego, Inc., must obtain and maintain approval by the FDA. While we work closely with our third-party manufacturers on the manufacturing process for our drug product candidates, including quality audits, we generally do not control the implementation of the manufacturing process of, and are completely dependent on, our contract manufacturers or other third-party manufacturers for compliance with GMP regulatory requirements and for manufacture of both active drug substances and finished drug products. If our contract manufacturers or other third-party manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to applicable specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or others, they will not be able to secure and/or maintain regulatory approval for their manufacturing facilities and we may not have sufficient access to supplies, which could significantly and adversely affect our operations.

In addition, we have no control over the ability of our contract manufacturers or other third-party manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve, or withdraws approval for, these facilities for the manufacture of our products and drug product candidates, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to commercialize, develop, or obtain or maintain regulatory approval for our products and drug product candidates.

We also rely on our manufacturers to purchase from third-party suppliers the materials necessary to produce our drug product candidates for our clinical trials. There are a limited number of suppliers for raw materials that we use to manufacture our products and drug product candidates and we may need to assess alternate suppliers to prevent a possible disruption of the manufacture of the materials necessary to produce our drug product candidates for our clinical trials. We do not have any control over the process or timing of the acquisition of these raw materials by our manufacturers. Moreover, we currently do not have any agreements for the commercial production of these raw materials. Although we generally do not begin a clinical trial unless we believe we have a sufficient supply of a product candidate to complete the clinical trial, any significant delay in the supply of a product candidate, or the raw material components thereof, for an ongoing clinical trial due to the need to replace a contract manufacturer or other third-party manufacturer could considerably delay completion of our clinical trials, product testing and potential regulatory approval of our drug product candidates.

Reliance on third-party manufacturers entails additional risks, including the possible breach of manufacturing agreements by the third party, the possible misappropriation of our proprietary information and the possible termination or non-renewal of an agreement by a third party at a time that is costly or inconvenient for us.

51

We expect to continue to depend on contract manufacturers or other third-party manufacturers for the foreseeable future. We may, however, be unable to enter into agreements or do so on commercially reasonable terms for potential future drug product candidates, which could have a material adverse impact upon our business.

We rely on certain sole or limited sources of supply for our drug product candidates and disruptions in the chain of supply have in the past, and may in the future, cause delays in developing, obtaining approval for, and commercializing our drug product candidates.

Currently, we use Catalent and PCI San Diego, Inc. as our source of supply for manufacturing clinical supply of our most advanced clinical stage assets, CUE-101 and CUE-102. If we experience multiple successive batch failures, or if supply from Catalent and PCI San Diego, Inc. is otherwise interrupted, there could be a significant disruption in our drug product candidates supply. Any alternative vendor would need to be qualified through an IND supplement, which could result in delay of our clinical trials of CUE-101 and CUE-102.

The manufacturing processes for CUE-101, CUE-102, CUE-401, CUE-501 and our other drug product candidates are complex, and it may be difficult or impossible to finalize appropriate processes for the scaled manufacture of the drug product candidates. These factors could cause the delay of clinical trials, regulatory submissions, required approvals or commercialization of any of our drug product candidates; cause us to incur higher costs; or prevent us from commercializing them successfully. Furthermore, if our suppliers fail to deliver the required clinical or commercial quantities of active pharmaceutical ingredient on a timely basis and at commercially reasonable prices and we are unable to secure one or more replacement suppliers capable of production at a substantially equivalent cost, our clinical trials may be delayed.

Risks Related to Intellectual Property and Other Legal Matters

If we or our licensor(s) are unable to protect our or its intellectual property, then our financial condition, results of operations and the value of our technology and potential products could be adversely affected.

Patents and other proprietary rights are essential to our business, and our ability to compete effectively is dependent upon the proprietary nature of our technologies. We also rely upon trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovations and licensing opportunities to develop, maintain and strengthen our competitive position. We seek to protect these, in part, through confidentiality agreements with certain employees, consultants and other parties. Our success will depend in part on the ability of ourselves and our licensor(s) to obtain, to maintain (including making periodic filings and payments) and to enforce patent protection for its intellectual property, particularly those patent applications and other intellectual property to which we have secured exclusive rights. We and our licensor(s) may not successfully prosecute or continue to prosecute the patent applications which we have licensed. Even if patents are issued in respect of pending patent applications, we or our licensor(s) may fail to maintain these patents, may determine not to pursue litigation against entities that are infringing upon these patents, or may pursue such enforcement less aggressively than we ordinarily would. Without adequate protection for the intellectual property that we own or license, others may be able to offer substantially identical products for sale, which could unfavorably affect our competitive business position and harm our business prospects. Even if issued, patents may be challenged, invalidated, or circumvented, which could limit our ability to stop competitors from marketing similar products or limit the length of the term of patent protection that we may have for our potential products.

Filing, prosecuting, maintaining and defending patents on drug product candidates in all countries throughout the world could be prohibitively expensive for us, and our intellectual property rights in some non-U.S. countries can have a different scope and strength than do those in the United States. In addition, the laws of certain non-U.S. countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as U.S. federal and state laws do. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing drugs made using our inventions in and into the United States or non-U.S. jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own drugs and further, may export otherwise infringing drugs to non-U.S. jurisdictions where we have patent protection, but where enforcement rights are not as strong as those in the United States. These drugs may compete with our drug product candidates and our patent rights or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or adequate to prevent them from competing.

52

Many U.S.-based companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of some countries do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property, particularly those relating to biopharmaceutical products, which could make it difficult in those jurisdictions for us to stop the infringement or misappropriation of our patents or other intellectual property rights, or the marketing of competing drugs in violation of our proprietary rights. Proceedings to enforce our patent and other intellectual property rights in non-U.S. jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business.

Furthermore, such proceedings could put our patents at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable or interpreted narrowly, could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing, and could provoke third parties to assert claims of infringement or misappropriation against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our proprietary information and know-how, the value of our technology and potential products could be adversely affected.

In addition to our licensed technology, we rely, and will continue to rely, upon, among other things, unpatented proprietary technology, processes, trade secrets, trademarks, and know-how. Any involuntary disclosure to or misappropriation by third parties of our confidential or proprietary information could enable competitors to duplicate or surpass our technological achievements, potentially eroding our competitive position in our market. We seek to protect confidential or proprietary information in part by confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants and third parties. While we require all of our employees, consultants, advisors and any third parties who have access to our proprietary know-how, information and technology to enter into confidentiality agreements, we cannot be certain that this know-how, information and technology will not be disclosed or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. These agreements may be terminated or breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any such termination or breach. Furthermore, these agreements may not provide meaningful protection for our trade secrets and know-how in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure. To the extent that any of our staff was previously employed by other pharmaceutical, medical technology or biotechnology companies, those employers may allege violations of trade secrets and other similar claims in relation to their former employee’s therapeutic development activities for us. Any dispute involving such employees may result in liabilities to us.

If we fail to comply with our obligations in the agreements under which we license development or commercialization rights to products or technology from third parties, we could lose license rights that are important to our business.

We hold an exclusive license from Einstein to intellectual property relating to certain patent rights, relating to our core technology platform for the engineering of biologics to control T cell activity, precision, immune-modulatory drug product candidates, and two supporting technologies that enable the discovery of costimulatory signaling molecules (ligands) and T cell targeting peptides. This license imposes various developmental milestone obligations on us. If we fail to comply with any obligations under the license agreement and fail to cure such noncompliance, Einstein will have the right to terminate the agreement and our license. The existing patent applications or future patents to which we have rights based on our agreements with Einstein may be too specific and narrowly construed to prevent third parties from developing or designing around the protection provided by these patents. Additionally, we may lose our rights to the patents and patent applications we license in the event of termination of the license agreement. There is no assurance that we will be successful in meeting all of the milestones in the future on a timely basis or that this license agreement will not be terminated for other reasons, depriving us of significant rights. The termination of this license agreement would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

If we are unable to patent and protect the intellectual property used in our potential products, others may be able to copy our innovations, which may impair our ability to compete effectively in our markets.

The strength of our anticipated patents will involve complex legal and scientific matters and can be uncertain. As described above under “Business – Our Intellectual Property,” we own or license a number of pending patent applications. Our anticipated patents may be challenged or fail to result in issued patents and anticipated patents may be too specific and narrowly construed to prevent third parties from developing or designing around the protections provided by our intellectual property and in that event we may lose competitive advantage and our business may suffer. Further, the patent and patent applications that we license or have filed may fail to result in issued patents or the claims may need to be amended. Even after

53

amendment, a patent may not issue. In that event, we may not obtain the exclusive use of the intellectual property that we seek, and we may lose competitive advantage, which could result in harm to our business.

Litigation or third-party claims of intellectual property infringement or challenges to the validity of our anticipated patents would require us to use resources to protect our technology and may prevent or delay our development, regulatory approval or commercialization of our drug product candidates.

If we are the target of claims by third parties asserting that our potential products or intellectual property infringe upon the rights of others, we may be forced to incur substantial expenses or divert substantial employee resources from our business.

If successful, those claims could result in our having to pay substantial damages or could prevent us from developing one or more drug product candidates. Further, if a patent infringement suit is brought against us or our collaborators, we or they could be forced to stop or delay research, development, manufacturing or sales of the product or product candidate that is the subject of the suit.

If we or our collaborators experience patent infringement claims, or if we elect to avoid potential claims others may be able to assert, we or our collaborators may choose to seek, or be required to seek, a license from the third party and would most likely be required to pay license fees or royalties or both. These licenses may not be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Even if we or our collaborators were able to obtain a license, the rights may be nonexclusive, which would give our competitors access to the same intellectual property. Ultimately, we could be prevented from commercializing a product, or be forced to cease some aspect of our business operations if, as a result of actual or threatened patent infringement claims, we or our collaborators are unable to enter into license agreements on acceptable terms or at all. This could harm our business significantly. The cost to us of any litigation or other proceeding, regardless of its merit, and even if resolved in our favor, could be substantial. Some of our competitors may be able to bear the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial and human resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace. Intellectual property litigation and other proceedings may, regardless of their merit, also absorb significant management time and employee resources.

Although we are not currently aware of any litigation or other proceedings or third-party claims of intellectual property infringement, the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by many suits regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. Other parties may in the future allege that our activities infringe upon their patents or that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. We may not have identified all the patents, patent applications or published literature that affect our business either by blocking our ability to commercialize our potential products, by preventing the patentability of one or more aspects of our potential products or those of our licensor or by covering the same or similar technologies that may affect our ability to market our potential products. In addition, even in the absence of litigation, we may need to obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of our drug product candidates, and we have done so from time to time. We may fail to obtain future licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In that event, we may be unable to further develop and commercialize one or more of our drug product candidates, which could harm our business significantly.

Some intellectual property that we have in-licensed may have been discovered through government funded programs and thus may be subject to federal regulations such as “march-in” rights, certain reporting requirements and a preference for U.S.-based companies. Compliance with such regulations may limit our exclusive rights and limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. manufacturers.

The majority of the intellectual property rights we have licensed are generated through the use of U.S. government funding and are therefore subject to certain federal regulations. As a result, the U.S. government may have certain rights to intellectual property embodied in our current or future drug product candidates pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, or Bayh-Dole Act. These U.S. government rights in certain inventions developed under a government-funded program include a non-exclusive, non-transferable, irrevocable worldwide license to use inventions for any governmental purpose. In addition, the U.S. government has the right to require us to grant exclusive, partially exclusive, or non-exclusive licenses to any of these inventions to a third party if it determines that: (i) adequate steps have not been taken to commercialize the invention; (ii) government action is necessary to meet public health or safety needs; or (iii) government action is necessary to meet requirements for public use under federal regulations (also referred to as “march-in rights”). The U.S. government also has the right to take title to these inventions if we, or the applicable licensor, fail to disclose the invention to the government and fail to file an application to register the intellectual property within specified time limits. Intellectual property generated under a

54

government funded program is also subject to certain reporting requirements, compliance with which may require us or the applicable licensor to expend substantial resources. In addition, the U.S. government requires that any products embodying the subject invention or produced through the use of the subject invention be manufactured substantially in the United States. The manufacturing preference requirement can be waived if the owner of the intellectual property can show that reasonable but unsuccessful efforts have been made to grant licenses on similar terms to potential licensees that would be likely to manufacture substantially in the United States or that under the circumstances domestic manufacture is not commercially feasible. This preference for U.S. manufacturers may limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. product manufacturers for products covered by such intellectual property. To the extent any of our current or future intellectual property is generated through the use of U.S. government funding, the provisions of the Bayh-Dole Act may similarly apply.

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

Patents have a limited lifespan. In the U.S., if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the normal statutory term of a patent is generally 20 years from its earliest U.S. non-provisional filing date. Various extensions may be available, but the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Further, normal statutory patent terms may be limited in the U.S. in the event there is a determination that the claims in different patents are directed to obvious variants of the same invention, which can negatively impact the normal statutory patent term. Even if patents covering our drug product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired for a product candidate, we may be open to competition from competitive medications, including generic medications. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new drug product candidates, patents protecting such drug product candidates might expire before or shortly after such drug product candidates are commercialized. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing drug product candidates similar or identical to ours.

Depending upon the timing, duration and conditions of any FDA marketing approval of our drug product candidates, one or more of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, and similar legislation in the European Union, or EU. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent term extension of up to five years for a patent covering an approved product as compensation for effective patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, we may not receive an extension if we fail to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, fail to apply within applicable deadlines, fail to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise fail to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the length of the extension could be less than we request. Only one patent per approved product can be extended, the extension cannot extend the total patent term beyond 14 years from approval, and the scope of protection is not the full scope of the claims but is instead limited to the approved drug, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or the term of any such extension is less than we request, the period during which we can enforce our patent rights for the applicable product candidate will be shortened and our competitors may obtain approval to market competing products sooner. As a result, our revenue from applicable products could be reduced. Further, if this occurs, our competitors may take advantage of our investment in development and trials by referencing our clinical and preclinical data and launch their product earlier than might otherwise be the case, and our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects could be materially harmed.

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

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

•

decreased demand for our potential drugs;

•

injury to our reputation and significant negative media attention;

55

•

withdrawal of clinical trial participants and inability to continue clinical trials;

•

initiation of investigations by regulators;

•

costs to defend the related litigation;

•

a diversion of management’s time and our resources;

•

substantial monetary awards to trial participants or patients;

•

product recalls, withdrawals or labeling, marketing or promotional restrictions;

•

loss of revenue;

•

financial cost;

•

exhaustion of any available insurance and our capital resources; and

•

the inability to commercialize any product candidate.

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

Risks Related to Government Regulation

Even if we complete the necessary preclinical studies and clinical trials, the marketing approval process is expensive, time-consuming, and uncertain and may prevent us from obtaining approvals for the commercialization of any of our drug product candidates. If we are not able to obtain, or if there are delays in obtaining, required regulatory approvals, we will not be able to commercialize, or will be delayed in commercializing, our drug product candidates, and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.

Any of our drug product candidates and the activities associated with their development and commercialization, including their design, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale, and distribution, are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory authorities in the United States and by comparable authorities in other countries. Failure to obtain marketing approval for a product candidate will prevent us from commercializing the product candidate in a given jurisdiction. We have not received approval to market any drug product candidates from regulatory authorities in any jurisdiction. We have only limited experience in filing and supporting the applications necessary to gain marketing approvals and expect to rely on third-party CROs to assist us in this process. Securing regulatory approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to the various regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the biologic product candidate’s safety, purity, and potency. Securing regulatory approval also requires the submission of information about the product manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the relevant regulatory authority. Any of our drug product candidates may not be effective, may be only moderately effective, or may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities, or other characteristics that may preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use.

In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003, a BLA or supplement to a BLA for certain biological products must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the biological product in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective, unless the sponsor receives a deferral or waiver from the FDA. A deferral may be granted for several reasons, including a finding that the product or therapeutic candidate is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric trials are complete or that additional safety or effectiveness data needs to be collected before the pediatric trials begin. The applicable legislation in the EU also requires sponsors to either conduct clinical trials in a pediatric population in accordance with a Pediatric Investigation Plan approved by the Pediatric Committee of the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, or to obtain a

56

waiver or deferral from the conduct of these studies by the Pediatric Committee of the EMA. For any of our drug product candidates for which we are seeking regulatory approval in the U.S. or the EU, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to obtain a waiver or alternatively complete any required studies and other requirements in a timely manner, or at all, which could result in associated reputational harm and subject us to enforcement action.

Finally, the FDA and comparable authorities in other countries have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data is insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical, clinical, or other studies. In addition, varying interpretations of the data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing could delay, limit, or prevent marketing approval of a product candidate. Any marketing approval we ultimately obtain may be limited or subject to restrictions or post-approval commitments that render the approved product not commercially viable.

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

We are subject to regulation in respect of our research and federal funding.

Because our licensor has conducted research under federal grants and we may conduct further research under federal grants, we will be subject to federal regulation in how we conduct our research and the agreement terms relating to those grants. There are also ethical guidelines promulgated by various governments and research institutions that we are required to follow in respect of our research. These guidelines are orientated towards research and experimentation involving humans and animals. Failure to follow the regulations, agreement terms and accepted scientific practices would jeopardize our grants and our results and the use of the results in further research and approval circumstances. Because our licensor has used federal funding, the government retains a “march-in” right in connection with these grants, which is the right to grant additional licenses to practice inventions developed from grant funding.

In December 2023, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST, released for public comment a Draft Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of March-In Rights, or the Draft Framework. The Draft Framework sets forth the factors that an agency may consider when deciding whether to exercise march-in rights pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act and includes a first-ever specification that price can be a factor in determining that a drug or other taxpayer-funded invention is not accessible to the public. NIST is currently seeking public comments on the proposed Draft Framework. The potential inclusion of price as a factor in a march-in determination and the exercise of “march-in” rights by the federal government could result in decreased demand for our future products, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. In addition, any failure to comply with applicable laws or regulations could harm our business and divert our management’s attention.

Failure to obtain marketing approval in foreign jurisdictions would prevent any of our drug product candidates from being marketed in such jurisdictions, which, in turn, would materially impair our ability to generate revenue.

In order to market and sell any of our drug product candidates in the European Union and many other foreign jurisdictions, we or our collaborators must obtain separate marketing approvals and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements. The approval procedure varies among countries and can involve additional testing. The time required to obtain approval may differ substantially from that required to obtain FDA approval. The regulatory approval process outside the United States generally includes all of the same or similar risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. In addition, in many countries outside the United States, it is required that the product be approved for reimbursement before the product can be approved for sale in that country. We may not obtain approvals from regulatory authorities outside the United States on a timely basis, if at all. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval by one regulatory authority outside the United States does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions or by the FDA. We may not be able to file for marketing approvals and may not receive necessary approvals to commercialize our drug product candidates in any jurisdiction, which would materially impair our ability to generate revenue.

Additionally, we could face heightened risks with respect to obtaining marketing authorization in the UK as a result of the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, commonly referred to as Brexit. The UK is no longer part of the European Single Market and EU Customs Union. As of January 1, 2025, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, is responsible for approving all medicinal products destined for the United Kingdom market (i.e., Great Britain and Northern Ireland). On April 28, 2025, the UK Parliament adopted amendments to improve and strengthen the UK’s clinical trials regulatory regime; they will take effect on April 28, 2026. These changes were needed since the current UK requirements are based upon the now-repealed EU Clinical Trials Directive (2001/20/EC), which has been replaced by the European Clinical

57

Trials Regulation (Regulation EU No 536/2014). Since the UK left the EU prior to the date on which the EU CTR took effect, the UK legal framework did not benefit from the same revisions as occurred at EU level.

At the same time, a new international recognition procedure, or IRP, will apply, which intends to facilitate approval of pharmaceutical products in the UK. The IRP is open to applicants that have already received an authorization for the same product from one of the MHRA’s specified Reference Regulators, or RRs. The RRs notably include EMA and regulators in the EU/European Economic Area, or EEA, member states for approvals in the EU centralized procedure and mutual recognition procedure as well as the FDA (for product approvals granted in the U.S.). However, the concrete functioning of the IRP is currently unclear. Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, any marketing approvals may force us or our collaborators to restrict or delay efforts to seek regulatory approval in the UK for our product candidates, which could significantly and materially harm our business.

In addition, foreign regulatory authorities may change their approval policies and new regulations may be enacted. For instance, the EU pharmaceutical legislation is currently undergoing a complete review process, in the context of the Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe initiative, launched by the European Commission in November 2020. The European Commission’s proposal for revision of several legislative instruments related to medicinal products, which may reduce the duration of regulatory data protection and exclusivity periods for orphan drugs, and revise the eligibility for expedited pathways in addition to other changes, was published on April 26, 2023. On June 4, 2025, after almost two years of negotiations among the EU Member States, the Council of the European Union adopted its position on the proposed overhaul of the EU general pharmaceutical legislative framework, which is known as the new Pharma Package. Thereafter, on December 11, 2025, the European Parliament and Council reached a provisional political agreement on the legislation which is expected to be adopted by mid-2026. The revisions may have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry and our business. They would, among other things, set a baseline period of 8 years of data exclusivity and one year of market exclusivity with possible extensions for new indications up to a maximum of 11 years total. There will likely be a transition period of 24 months, with the changes taking effect in mid-2028.

We expect that we will be subject to additional risks in commercializing any of our drug product candidates that receive marketing approval outside the United States, including tariffs, trade barriers and regulatory requirements; economic weakness, including inflation, or political instability in particular foreign economies and markets; compliance with tax, employment, immigration and labor laws for employees living or traveling abroad; foreign currency fluctuations, which could result in increased operating expenses and reduced revenue, and other obligations incident to doing business in another country; and workforce uncertainty in countries where labor unrest is more common than in the United States.

We may seek orphan drug designation for one or more of our drug product candidates, but even if such designation is granted, we may be unable to maintain any benefits associated with orphan drug designation, including market exclusivity that prevents the FDA or the EMA from approving other competing products.

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a product as an orphan drug if it is a drug or biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition. A similar regulatory scheme governs approval of orphan products by the EMA in the European Union. Generally, if a product candidate with an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes the FDA or the EMA from approving another marketing application for the same product for the same therapeutic indication for that time period. The applicable period is seven years in the United States and ten years in the European Union. The exclusivity period in the European Union can be reduced to six years if a product no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation, in particular if the product is sufficiently profitable so that market exclusivity is no longer justified.

In order for the FDA to grant orphan drug exclusivity to one of our products, the agency must find that the product is indicated for the treatment of a condition or disease with a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals annually in the United States. The FDA may conclude that the condition or disease for which we seek orphan drug exclusivity does not meet this standard. Even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because different products can be approved for the same condition. In addition, even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve the same product for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later product is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. Orphan drug exclusivity may also be lost if the FDA or EMA determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the product to meet the needs of the patients with the rare disease or condition.

58

The FDA and Congress may further reevaluate and revise the Orphan Drug Act and its regulations and policies. For example, in September 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit held that, for the purpose of determining the scope of orphan drug exclusivity, the term “same disease or condition” means the designated “rare disease or condition” and not the “indication or use” for which the product is approved. Subsequently, in another case, a federal district court in Washington, D.C. followed the reasoning of the 11th Circuit decision, and that decision was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. On February 3, 2026, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2026 was enacted into law. It overruled these court decisions and codified the FDA’s longstanding interpretation of the scope of orphan drug exclusivity to apply to “the same drug for the same approved use or indication within such [designated] rare disease or condition.” This change, which applies retroactively, expressly authorizes the FDA to approve multiple versions of the same orphan drug for different sub-indications and subpopulations, such as adult and pediatric patients or multiple variations of the same disease that are caused by different genetic variants.

If approved, our drug product candidates that are licensed and regulated as biologics may face competition from biosimilars approved through an abbreviated regulatory pathway.

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, was enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively the PPACA, to establish an abbreviated pathway for the approval of biosimilar and interchangeable biological products. The regulatory pathway establishes legal authority for the FDA to review and approve biosimilar biologics, including the possible designation of a biosimilar as “interchangeable” based on its similarity to an approved biologic. Under the BPCIA, a reference biological product is granted 12 years of data exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the product, and the FDA will not accept an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until four years after the date of first licensure of the reference product In addition, the licensure of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still develop and receive approval of a competing biologic, so long as its BLA does not reply on the reference product, sponsor’s data or submit the application as a biosimilar application.

We believe that any of the product candidates we develop as a biological product under a BLA should qualify for the 12-year period of exclusivity. However, there is a risk that this exclusivity could be shortened due to congressional action or otherwise, or that the FDA will not consider the subject product candidates to be reference products for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for biosimilar competition sooner than anticipated. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar, once approved, will be substituted for any one of the reference products in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biological products will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing. Further, the FDA may revise the standards governing approval of biosimilars so as to bring such products to the market more quickly.

For example, in October 2025, the FDA issued draft guidance which proposes to eliminate the need for sponsors of biosimilar products to conduct comparative human clinical efficacy studies, allowing them to rely instead on analytical testing to demonstrate product differences from a reference product. In addition, in February 2026, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner) and the Director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research published an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine in which they declared that, in most cases, the new default requirement for FDA approval of a new product will be one adequate and well-controlled pivotal clinical trial plus confirmatory evidence, rather than two pivotal clinical trials. In determining whether to rely on one trial, the FDA will focus on the single trial’s quality, including magnitude of effect, appropriateness of control arms, endpoint selection, statistical power, blinding, handling of missing data, biological plausibility and alignment with intermediate biomarkers. The FDA has long had authority to approve new products on the basis of one trial plus confirmatory evidence and, in recent years, the agency has exercised that authority with respect to certain types of products. The FDA now takes the position that this will be the new official default standard for most product candidates. At this point, it is unclear how this new policy will be implemented by the FDA and how, if at all, it will affect our clinical development programs.

We may seek fast track designation or breakthrough therapy and priority review programs for our drug product candidates. Even if our drug product candidates receive one or more of these designations, the product candidate may not be subject to a faster review process nor does any such designation assure approval of our drug product candidates.

We aim to benefit from the FDA’s fast track, breakthrough therapy and priority review programs. However, our drug product candidates may not receive an FDA fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, or priority review. Without fast track designation, submitting a BLA, and getting through the regulatory process to gain marketing approval is a lengthy process. Under fast track designation, the FDA may initiate review of sections of a fast track drug’s BLA before the application is complete. However, the FDA’s time period goal for reviewing an application does not begin until the last section of the BLA is submitted. On October 3, 2022, we received fast track designation for CUE-101 for the treatment of R/M HPV+ HNSCC as a monotherapy and in combination with KEYTRUDA.

59

The FDA has also established breakthrough therapy designation, which is for a product that is intended, either alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The FDA may take certain actions with respect to breakthrough therapies, including holding meetings with the sponsor throughout the development process; providing timely advice to the sponsor regarding development and approval; involving more senior staff in the review process; assigning a cross-disciplinary project lead for the review team; and taking other steps to design the clinical trials in an efficient manner. We may seek breakthrough therapy designation for one or more of our drug product candidates, but there can be no assurance that we will receive such designation.

Under the FDA's policies, a product candidate is eligible for priority review, or review within a six-month time frame from the time a complete BLA is accepted for filing, if the product candidate provides a significant improvement compared to marketed drugs in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a disease. Significant improvement may be illustrated by evidence of increased effectiveness in the treatment of a condition, elimination or substantial reduction of a treatment-limiting product reaction, documented enhancement of patient compliance that may lead to improvement in serious outcomes, and evidence of safety and effectiveness in a new subpopulation. A fast track or breakthrough therapy designated drug product candidate would ordinarily meet the FDA’s criteria for priority review.

The FDA has broad discretion with respect to whether or not to grant these designations to a product candidate, so even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for such designation or status, the FDA may decide not to grant it. Moreover, any such designation does not necessarily mean a faster regulatory review process or necessarily confer any advantage with respect to licensure compared to conventional FDA procedures. As a result, while we may seek and receive these designations for our drug product candidates, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. In addition, the FDA may withdraw these designations if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. A delay in the review process or in the approval of our potential products would delay revenue, if any, from their potential sales and would increase the capital necessary to fund these product development programs.

We are also currently participating in Project Optimus, an initiative of the Oncology Center of Excellence at the FDA. This project focuses on dose optimization and dose selection in oncology drug development, and whether the current paradigm based on cytotoxic chemotherapeutics leads to doses and schedules of molecularly targeted therapies that provide more toxicity without additional efficacy, among other things. By participating in Project Optimus, we have the opportunity to meet with the FDA’s Oncology Review Divisions early in our development programs, well before conducting trials intended for registration, to discuss dose-finding and dose optimization. The program thus allows us to develop strategies for dose finding and dose optimization that leverages nonclinical and clinical data in dose selection, including randomized evaluations of a range of doses in trials, with the objective of performing these studies as early as possible in the development program to bring promising new therapies to patients. There is no assurance, however, that our involvement in this program will lead to early discussions with the FDA or expedited studies leading to optimization of dose selection for our candidate products.

We may seek approval from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities to use accelerated development pathways for our drug product candidates. If we are not able to use such pathways, we may be required to conduct additional clinical trials beyond those that are contemplated, which would increase the expense of obtaining, and delay the receipt of, necessary marketing approvals, if we receive them at all. In addition, even if an accelerated approval pathway is available to us, it may not lead to expedited approval of our drug product candidates, or approval at all.

Under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or the FDCA, and implementing regulations, the FDA may grant accelerated approval to a product candidate to treat a serious or life-threatening condition that provides meaningful therapeutic benefit over available therapies, upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint or intermediate clinical endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA considers a clinical benefit to be a positive therapeutic effect that is clinically meaningful in the context of a given disease, such as irreversible morbidity or mortality. For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign, or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit, but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit measurement of a therapeutic effect that is considered reasonably likely to predict the clinical benefit of a drug. The accelerated approval pathway may be used in cases in which the advantage of a new drug over available therapy may not be a direct therapeutic advantage, but is a clinically important improvement from a patient and public health perspective.

60

Prior to seeking such accelerated approval, we will continue to seek feedback from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory agencies and otherwise evaluate our ability to seek and receive such accelerated approval. There can be no assurance that the FDA or foreign regulatory agencies will agree with our surrogate endpoints or intermediate clinical endpoints in any of our clinical trials, or that we will decide to pursue or submit any additional applications for accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval. Similarly, there can be no assurance that, after feedback from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory agencies, we will continue to pursue or apply for accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval. Furthermore, for any submission of an application for accelerated approval or application under another expedited regulatory designation, there can be no assurance that such submission or application will be accepted for filing or that any expedited development, review or approval will be granted on a timely basis, or at all.

Finally, there can be no assurance that we will satisfy all FDA requirements, including new provisions that govern accelerated approval. For example, with passage of the FDORA in December 2022, Congress modified certain provisions governing accelerated approval of drug and biologic products. Specifically, the new legislation authorized the FDA to require a sponsor to have its confirmatory clinical trial underway before accelerated approval is awarded and to submit progress reports on its post-approval studies to FDA every six months until the study is completed. Moreover, FDORA established expedited procedures authorizing FDA to withdraw an accelerated approval if certain conditions are met, including where a required confirmatory study fails to verify and describe the predicted clinical benefit or where evidence demonstrates the product is not shown to be safe or effective under the conditions of use. The FDA may also use such procedures to withdraw an accelerated approval if a sponsor fails to conduct any required post-approval study of the product with due diligence, including with respect to “conditions specified by the Secretary.” The new procedures include the provision of due notice and an explanation for a proposed withdrawal, and opportunities for a meeting with the Commissioner or the Commissioner’s designee and a written appeal, among other things. We will need to fully comply with these and other requirements in connection with the development and approval of any product candidate that qualifies for accelerated approval.

In March 2023, the FDA issued draft guidance that outlines its current thinking and approach to accelerated approval. The FDA indicated that the accelerated approval pathway is commonly used for approval of oncology drugs due to the serious and life-threatening nature of cancer. Although single-arm trials have been commonly used to support accelerated approval, a randomized controlled trial is the preferred approach as it provides a more robust efficacy and safety assessment and allows for direct comparisons to an available therapy. To that end, the FDA outlined considerations for designing, conducting, and analyzing data for trials intended to support accelerated approvals of oncology therapeutics. Subsequently, in December 2024 and January 2025, the FDA issued additional draft guidances relating to accelerated approval. These guidances describe FDA’s views on what it means to conduct a confirmatory trial with due diligence and how the agency plans to interpret whether such a study needs to be underway at the time of approval. While these guidances are currently only in draft form and will ultimately not be legally binding even when finalized, sponsors typically observe the FDA’s guidance closely to ensure that their investigational products qualify for accelerated approval.

Accordingly, a failure to obtain and maintain accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval for our drug product candidates, or withdrawal of a product candidate, would result in a longer time period until commercialization of such product candidate, could increase the cost of development of such product candidate and could harm our competitive position in the marketplace.

We may in the future conduct clinical trials for certain of our drug product candidates at sites outside the United States. The FDA may not accept data from trials conducted in such locations and the conduct of trials outside the United States could subject us to additional delays and expense.

We may in the future conduct one or more of our clinical trials with trial sites that are located outside the United States. Although the FDA may accept data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States, acceptance of these data is subject to certain conditions imposed by the FDA. For example, the clinical trial must be well designed and conducted and performed by qualified investigators in accordance with good clinical practice. The FDA must be able to validate the data from the trial through an onsite inspection if necessary. The trial population must also have a similar profile to the U.S. population, and the data must be applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice in ways that the FDA deems clinically meaningful, except to the extent the disease being studied does not typically occur in the United States. In addition, while these clinical trials are subject to the applicable local laws, the FDA acceptance of the data will be dependent upon its determination that the trials also complied with all applicable U.S. laws and regulations. There can be no assurance that the FDA will accept data from clinical trials conducted outside of the United States. If the FDA does not accept the data from any trial that we conduct outside the United States, it would likely result in the need for additional trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and delay or permanently halt our development of our drug product candidates.

61

In addition, the conduct of clinical trials outside the United States could have a significant adverse impact on us or the trial results. Risks inherent in conducting international clinical trials include:

•

clinical practice patterns and standards of care that vary widely among countries;

•

non-U.S. regulatory authority requirements that could restrict or limit our ability to conduct our clinical trials;

•

administrative burdens of conducting clinical trials under multiple non-U.S. regulatory authority schema;

•

foreign exchange rate fluctuations; and

•

diminished protection of intellectual property in some countries.

To obtain the necessary approval of our potential products, as a precondition, we will need to conduct various preclinical and clinical tests, all of which will be costly and time consuming, and may not provide results that will allow us to seek regulatory approval.

The number of preclinical and clinical tests that will be required for regulatory approval varies depending on the disease or condition to be treated, the method of treatment, the nature of the drug, the jurisdiction in which approval is sought and the applicable regulations. Regulatory agencies can delay, limit or deny approval of a product for many reasons. For example, regulatory agencies may:

•

not deem a product candidate to be safe or effective;

•

interpret data from preclinical and clinical testing differently than we do;

•

not approve the manufacturing processes;

•

conclude that our drug product candidate does not meet quality standards for durability, long-term reliability, biocompatibility, compatibility, or safety; and

•

change their approval policies or adopt new regulations.

The FDA may make requests or suggestions regarding conduct of any clinical trials, resulting in an increased risk of difficulties or delays in obtaining regulatory approval in the United States. Foreign regulatory agencies may similarly have the ability to influence any clinical trials occurring outside the United States. Any of these occurrences could prove materially harmful to our operations and business.

Even if we, or any collaborators we may have, obtain marketing approvals for any of our drug product candidates, the terms of approvals and ongoing regulation of our products could require the substantial expenditure of resources and may limit how we, or they, manufacture and market our products, which could materially impair our ability to generate revenue.

Any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval, along with the manufacturing processes, post-approval clinical data, labeling, advertising, and promotional activities for such product, will be subject to continual requirements of and review by the FDA and other regulatory authorities. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration and listing requirements, GMP requirements relating to quality control, quality assurance and corresponding maintenance of records and documents, and requirements regarding the distribution of samples to physicians and recordkeeping. Even if marketing approval of a product candidate is granted, the approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for costly post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the product.

Accordingly, assuming we, or any collaborators we may have, receive marketing approval for one or more of our drug product candidates, we, and such collaborators, and our and their contract manufacturers will continue to need to expend time, money, and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production, product surveillance, and quality control. If we and such collaborators are not able to comply with post-approval regulatory requirements, we and such collaborators could have the marketing approvals for our products withdrawn by regulatory authorities and our, or such collaborators’, ability to market any future products could be limited, which could adversely affect our ability to generate revenue and achieve or sustain profitability. Further, the cost of compliance with post-approval regulations may have a negative effect on our business, operating results, financial condition, and prospects.

62

If we receive regulatory approval for any product candidate, we will be subject to ongoing obligations and continuing regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense. Our drug product candidates, if approved, could be subject to restrictions or withdrawal from the market, and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or if we experience unanticipated problems with our drug product candidates, when and if approved.

Any drug product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval will also be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements for labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, advertising, promotion, record-keeping and submission of safety and other post marketing information. For example, approved products, manufacturers and manufacturers’ facilities are required to comply with extensive FDA requirements, including ensuring that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to GMPs. As such, we and our contract manufacturers will be subject to continual review and periodic inspections to assess compliance with GMPs. Accordingly, we and others with whom we work must continue to expend time, money and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production and quality control. We will also be required to report certain adverse reactions and production problems, if any, to the FDA and to comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotion for our products.

In addition, even if marketing approval of a product candidate is granted, the approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the product may be marketed, may be subject to significant conditions of approval or may impose requirements for costly post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the product. The FDA may also require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, as a condition of approval of our drug product candidates, which could include requirements for a medication guide, physician communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools.

If a regulatory agency discovers previously unknown problems with a product, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facility where the product is manufactured, or disagrees with the promotion, marketing or labeling of a product, it may impose restrictions on that product or us. In addition, if any product fails to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, a regulatory agency may:

•

issue fines, warning letters, untitled letters or impose holds on clinical trials if any are still ongoing;

•

mandate modifications to promotional materials or require provision of corrective information to healthcare practitioners;

•

impose restrictions on the product or its manufacturers or manufacturing processes;

•

impose restrictions on the labeling or marketing of the product;

•

impose restrictions on product distribution or use;

•

require post-marketing clinical trials;

•

require withdrawal of the product from the market;

•

refuse to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications that we submit;

•

require recall of the product;

•

require entry into a consent decree, which can include imposition of various fines (including restitution or disgorgement of profits or revenue), reimbursements for inspection costs, required due dates for specific actions and penalties for non-compliance;

•

suspend or withdraw marketing approvals;

•

refuse to permit the import or export of the product;

•

seize or detain supplies of the product; or

•

issue injunctions or impose civil or criminal penalties.

Further, our ability to develop and market new drug products may be impacted by litigation challenging the FDA’s approval of another company’s drug product. In April 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas

63

invalidated the approval by the FDA of mifepristone, a drug product which was originally approved in 2000 and whose distribution is governed by various measures adopted under a REMS. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit declined to order the removal of mifepristone from the market but did hold that plaintiffs were likely to prevail in their claim that changes allowing for expanded access of mifepristone, which the FDA authorized in 2016 and 2021, were arbitrary and capricious. In June 2024, the Supreme Court reversed that decision after unanimously finding that the plaintiffs (anti-abortion doctors and organizations) did not have standing to bring this legal action against the FDA. On October 11, 2024, the Attorneys General of three states (Missouri, Idaho and Kansas) filed an amended complaint in the district court in Texas challenging FDA’s actions. On January 16, 2025, the district court agreed to allow these states to file an amended complaint and continue to pursue this challenge. Thereafter, on September 30, 2025, the district court declined to dismiss the case and, instead, transferred it to federal district court in the Eastern District of Missouri. Depending on the outcome of this litigation, our ability to develop new drug product candidates and to maintain approval of existing drug products could be delayed, undermined or subject to protracted litigation.

In addition, we could be adversely affected by several significant administrative law cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2024. In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, for example, the court overruled Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which for 40 years required federal courts to defer to permissible agency interpretations of statutes that are silent or ambiguous on a particular topic. The U.S. Supreme Court stripped federal agencies of this presumptive deference and held that courts must exercise their independent judgment when deciding whether an agency such as the FDA acted within its statutory authority under the Administrative Procedure Act, or the APA. Additionally, in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the court held that actions to challenge a federal regulation under the APA can be initiated within six years of the date of injury to the plaintiff, rather than the date the rule is finalized. The decision appears to give prospective plaintiffs a personal statute of limitations to challenge longstanding agency regulations. Another decision, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, overturned regulatory agencies’ ability to impose civil penalties in administrative proceedings. These decisions could introduce additional uncertainty into the regulatory process and may result in additional legal challenges to actions taken by federal regulatory agencies, including the FDA and CMS, that we rely on. In addition to potential changes to regulations as a result of legal challenges, these decisions may result in increased regulatory uncertainty and delays and other impacts, any of which could adversely impact our business and operations.

We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability. Further, any government investigation of alleged violations of law could require us to expend significant time and resources in response and could generate negative publicity. The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit our ability to commercialize any drug product candidates we develop and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Similar restrictions apply to the approval of our products in the EU. The holder of a marketing authorization is required to comply with a range of requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of medicinal products. These include: compliance with the EU’s stringent pharmacovigilance or safety reporting rules, which can impose post-authorization studies and additional monitoring obligations; the manufacturing of authorized medicinal products, for which a separate manufacturer’s license is mandatory; and the marketing and promotion of authorized drugs, which are strictly regulated in the EU and are also subject to EU Member State laws. The failure to comply with these and other EU requirements can also lead to significant penalties and sanctions.

Any regulatory approval to market our products will be limited by indication. If we fail to comply or are found to be in violation of FDA regulations restricting the promotion of our products for unapproved uses, we could be subject to criminal penalties, substantial fines or other sanctions and damage awards.

The regulations relating to the promotion of products for unapproved uses are complex and subject to substantial interpretation by the FDA, EMA, MHRA and other government agencies. In September 2021, the FDA published final regulations which describe the types of evidence that the agency will consider in determining the intended use of a drug product. Physicians may nevertheless prescribe our products off-label to their patients in a manner that is inconsistent with the approved label. We intend to implement compliance and training programs designed to ensure that our sales and marketing practices comply with applicable regulations. Notwithstanding these programs, the FDA or other government agencies may allege or find that our practices constitute prohibited promotion of our products for unapproved uses. We also cannot be sure

64

that our employees will comply with company policies and applicable regulations regarding the promotion of products for unapproved uses.

Notwithstanding the regulatory restrictions on off-label promotion, the FDA and other regulatory authorities allow companies to engage in truthful, non-misleading, and non-promotional scientific communications concerning their products in certain circumstances. For example, in January 2025, the FDA published final guidance outlining its policies governing the distribution of scientific information to healthcare providers about unapproved uses of approved products. The final guidance calls for such communications to be non-promotional, truthful, non-misleading and scientifically sound and to include all information necessary for healthcare providers to interpret the strengths and weaknesses and validity and utility of the information about the unapproved use of the approved product. If a company engages in such communications consistent with the guidance’s recommendations, the FDA indicated that it will not treat such communications as evidence of unlawful promotion of a new intended use for the approved product.

In addition, under guidance from the FDA and the Pre-Approval Information Exchange Act, or PIE Act, signed into law as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, companies may also promote information that is consistent with the prescribing information and proactively speak to formulary committee members of payors regarding data for an unapproved drug or unapproved uses of an approved drug. We may engage in these discussions and communicate with healthcare providers, payors and other constituencies in compliance with all applicable laws, regulatory guidance and industry best practices. We will need to carefully navigate the FDA’s various regulations, guidance and policies, along with recently enacted legislation, to ensure compliance with restrictions governing promotion of our products.

In recent years, a significant number of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have been the target of inquiries and investigations by various federal and state regulatory, investigative, prosecutorial and administrative entities in connection with the promotion of products for unapproved uses and other sales practices, including the U.S. Department of Justice and various U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, the Office of Inspector General of HHS, the FDA, the Federal Trade Commission, or the FTC, and various state Attorneys General offices. These investigations have alleged violations of various federal and state laws and regulations, including claims asserting antitrust violations, violations of the FDCA, the False Claims Act, the Prescription Drug Marketing Act and anti-kickback laws and other alleged violations in connection with the promotion of products for unapproved uses, pricing and Medicare and/or Medicaid reimbursement. Many of these investigations originate as “qui tam” actions under the False Claims Act. Under the False Claims Act, any individual can bring a claim on behalf of the government alleging that a person or entity has presented a false claim or caused a false claim to be submitted to the government for payment. The person bringing a qui tam suit is entitled to a share of any recovery or settlement. Qui tam suits, also commonly referred to as “whistleblower suits,” are often brought by current or former employees. In a qui tam suit, the government must decide whether to intervene and prosecute the case. If it declines, the individual may pursue the case alone.

If the FDA or any other governmental agency initiates an enforcement action against us or if we are the subject of a qui tam suit and it is determined that we violated prohibitions relating to the promotion of products for unapproved uses, we could be subject to substantial civil or criminal fines or damage awards and other sanctions such as consent decrees and corporate integrity agreements pursuant to which our activities would be subject to ongoing scrutiny and monitoring to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Any such fines, awards or other sanctions would have an adverse effect on our revenue, business, financial prospects and reputation.

Disruptions at the FDA and other government agencies from funding cuts, personnel losses, regulatory reform, government shutdowns and other developments could hinder our ability to obtain guidance from the FDA regarding our clinical development program, progress development efficiently, and secure approval of our product candidates in a timely manner, which would negatively impact our business.

The FDA and comparable regulatory agencies in foreign jurisdictions, such as the EMA and Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, play an important role in the development of our product candidates by providing guidance on our clinical development programs and reviewing our regulatory submissions, including INDs, requests for special designations and marketing applications. If these oversight and review activities are disrupted, then correspondingly our ability to develop and secure timely approval of our product candidates could be impacted in a negative manner.

These actions and the resulting recent loss of FDA leadership and personnel could lead to disruptions and delays in FDA guidance, review and approval of our product candidate. For example, on July 14, 2025, following litigation reaching the U.S. Supreme Court, the administration began to carry out these layoffs across HHS, including the FDA. In November 2025, a Congressional Continuing Resolution ended the government shutdown, providing full-year funding for the FDA for FY 2026 through September 30, 2026 at approximately $7 billion with a slight increase in user fees for drug and device companies.

While the FDA’s review of marketing applications and other activities for new drugs and biologics is largely funded

65

through the user fee program established under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, it remains unclear how the administration’s efforts to reduce the workforce of HHS and budget cuts will impact this program and the ability of the FDA to provide guidance and review our product candidates in a timely manner. For example, while the reduction in workforce did not reportedly specifically target FDA reviewers, many operations, administrative and policy staff that help support such reviews were affected and those losses could lead to delays in PDUFA reviews and related activities. In addition, while currently unclear, there is a risk that the reduction in workforce and budget cutbacks could threaten the integrity of the PDUFA program itself. That is because, for the FDA to obligate user fees collected under PDUFA in the first place, a certain amount of non-user fee appropriations must be spent on the process for the review of applications plus certain other costs during the same fiscal year.

There is also substantial uncertainty as to how regulatory reform measures being implemented by the Trump Administration across the government will impact the FDA and other federal agencies with jurisdiction over our activities. For example, since taking office, President Trump has issued a number of executive orders that could have a significant impact on the manner in which the FDA conducts its operations and engages in regulatory and oversight activities. If these or other orders or executive actions impose constraints on the FDA’s ability to engage in oversight and implementation activities in the normal course, our business may be negatively impacted.

Similarly, actions by the U.S. government have significantly disrupted the operations of U.S. government agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and FDA, which have traditionally provided funding for basic research, research and development, and clinical testing. These U.S. government actions have included, among other things, suspending, terminating and withholding of disbursements of funds owed under ongoing contracts, grants, and other financial assistance agreements; declining to continue multi-year research projects for additional annual budget periods; canceling or delaying solicitations for new contract, grant and other financial assistance awards; canceling or delaying proposal evaluation processes and issuance of such new awards; substantially reducing federal agency staff responsible for managing contract and financial assistance programs; eliminating agency information and resources for facilitating research activity; delaying or terminating federal agency procedures for authorizing international transactions; initiating aggressive enforcement actions that may disrupt the operations of major research universities that are significant contributors to life sciences research in the U.S., and threatening access to federal agency contracts and other funding awards based on companies’ otherwise lawful corporate policies and choice of counsel. These U.S. government actions could, directly or indirectly, significantly disrupt, delay, prevent, or increase the costs of our research and product commercialization programs, including our ability to develop new product candidates, conduct clinical trials, implement research collaborations with other companies or institutions, and obtain approvals to market and sell new products.