ngne-20231231

Tableof Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

__________________________________

FORM 10-K

__________________________________

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023

For the transition period from to

Commission file number 001-36327

__________________________________

Neurogene Inc.

__________________________________

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(Address of Principal Executive Offices) (Zip Code)

(855) 508-3568

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code

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

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

Common stock, par value $0.000001 per share NGNE The Nasdaq Global Market

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

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.

Yes o Nox

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.

Yes o Nox

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

Yesx No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files).

Yesx No o

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

Large accelerated filer o Accelerated filer o

Non-accelerated filer x Smaller reporting company x

Emerging growth company o

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

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

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).

Yes oNo x

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant, based on the closing price of the shares of common stock on The Nasdaq Stock Market (“Nasdaq”) on June 30, 2023, was $33,350,835, based on the closing price on Nasdaq reported for such date. Shares of common stock held by each officer and director and by each person who is known to own 10% or more of the outstanding common stock have been excluded in that such persons may be deemed to be affiliates of the registrant. This determination of affiliate status is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes.

There were 12,852,985 shares of the registrant’s common stock, par value $0.000001 per share, issued and outstanding as of March 13, 2024.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

The information required by Part III of this Report, to the extent not set forth herein, is incorporated by reference from the registrant’s definitive proxy statement relating to the Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held in 2024, which shall be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year to which this Report relates (the “2024 Proxy Statement”).

Tableof Contents

Table of Contents

Page

Part I

Item 1. Business 3

Item 1A. Risk Factors 43

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments 89

Item 1C. Cybersecurity 89

Item 2. Properties 90

Item 3. Legal Proceedings 90

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures 90

Part II

Item 6. [Reserved] 91

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk 106

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data 107

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures 134

Item 9B. Other Information 135

Item 9C. Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdiction that Prevent Inspections. 135

Part III

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance 136

Item 11. Executive Compensation 136

Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services 136

Part IV

Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules 137

Tableof Contents

CAUTIONARY NOTE ABOUT FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the federal securities laws, which statements are subject to substantial risks and uncertainties and are based on estimates and assumptions. All statements, other than statements of historical facts, including statements concerning our plans, objectives, goals, strategies, future events, future revenues or performance, financing needs, plans or intentions relating to products and markets, and business trends and other information referred to under the sections entitled “Risk Factors,” “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” and “Business” are forward-looking statements. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terms such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “can,” “could,” “design,” “develop,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “objective,” “may,” “might,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “should,” “will,” “would,” or the negative of these terms, and similar expressions intended to identify forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are not historical facts, and reflect our current views with respect to future events. Given the significant uncertainties, you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements.

There are a number of risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements expressed or implied in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Such risks, uncertainties and other factors include, among others, the following:

•We have a limited operating history, have not completed any clinical trials, and have no products approved for commercial sale, and our results may vary from quarter to quarter.

•We will require substantial additional capital to finance our operations in the future. If we are unable to raise such capital when needed, or on acceptable terms, we may be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate clinical trials, product development programs or future commercialization efforts.

•We have incurred significant losses since inception, and expects to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future and may not be able to achieve or sustain profitability in the future. We have no products for sale, have not generated any product revenue and may never generate product revenue or become profitable.

•NGN-401, NGN-101 and our other programs are in early stages of development and may fail in development or suffer delays that materially and adversely affect their commercial viability.

•We are substantially dependent on the success of our most advanced product candidates, NGN-401 and NGN-101, and our ongoing and anticipated clinical trials of such candidates may not be successful.

•Delays in developing our manufacturing capabilities or failure to achieve operating efficiencies from such capabilities may require us to devote additional resources and management time to manufacturing operations and may delay our product development timelines.

•We have a number of academic collaborations, and currently rely on our collaboration with the University of Edinburgh for certain aspects of our preclinical research and development programs, including working in collaboration to discover and preclinically develop our lead product candidate for Rett syndrome and our near-term future pipeline. Failure or delay of the University of Edinburgh or any other collaborator to fulfil all or part of its obligations under our agreement, a breakdown in collaboration between the parties or a complete or partial loss of the relationship would materially harm our business.

•In order to successfully implement our plans and strategies, we will need to grow the size of our organization and we may experience difficulties in managing this growth.

•The regulatory approval processes of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities are lengthy, time-consuming and inherently unpredictable. If we are not able to obtain, or if there are delays in obtaining, required regulatory approvals for our product candidates, we will not be able to commercialize, or will be delayed in commercializing, such product candidates, and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.

•The market price of our common stock may continue to be volatile.

•If our legacy lease obligations are not subleased, assigned, terminated or otherwise addressed or the legacy assets subject to the CVR Agreement are not sold, respectively, in a timely manner, we may have to incur time and resources to take such actions.

•Future sales of shares by existing stockholders could cause our stock price to decline.

Tableof Contents

•Our executive officers, directors and principal stockholders have the ability to control or significantly influence all matters submitted to our stockholders for approval.

There may be other factors that may cause our actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements expressed or implied in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including factors disclosed in “Risk Factors” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” You should evaluate all forward-looking statements made in this Annual Report on Form 10-K in the context of these risks and uncertainties.

We caution you that the risks, uncertainties, and other factors referred to above and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K may not contain all of the risks, uncertainties and other factors that may affect our future results and operations. Moreover, new risks will emerge from time to time. It is not possible for our management to predict all risks. In addition, we cannot assure you that we will realize the results, benefits or developments that we expect or anticipate or, even if substantially realized, that they will result in the consequences or affect us or our business in the way expected.

Any forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K speak only as of the date hereof and not of any future date, and we expressly disclaim any intent to update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

Tableof Contents

Part I

Item 1. Business

Overview

Despite recent scientific advances in genetics, most neurological diseases, particularly those with devastating consequences to patients, are left untreated. Conventional gene therapy is an attractive potential treatment approach for only a limited number of monogenic diseases due to the challenges caused by the complex biology of neurological diseases and by inherent variable transgene uptake and expression. We are a clinical-stage biotechnology company committed to overcoming these limitations and turning today’s complex devastating neurological diseases into treatable conditions. By harnessing our proprietary transgene regulation technology, EXACTTM (Expression Attenuation via Construct Tuning), we are building a robust and differentiated product portfolio of genetic medicines for rare neurological diseases with high unmet need not otherwise addressable by conventional gene therapy. Our EXACT approach leverages key scientific breakthroughs, including gene transfer technology, microRNA-based genetic circuits, and adeno-associated virus delivery, and is designed to deliver therapeutic levels of transgene to key areas of the brain that underlie neurological disease pathology.

Our first clinical-stage program to utilize the EXACT platform is NGN-401, which is under development for the treatment of Rett syndrome, a disease with a patient population that has a significant unmet need, and that ultimately progresses to substantial neurological and physical impairment and premature death. NGN-401 is being evaluated in pediatric female patients with Rett syndrome in a Phase 1/2 open-label, multi-center clinical trial that will assess the safety, tolerability, and efficacy oftwo doses of NGN-401 delivered using a one-time intracerebral ventricular (“ICV”) procedure. We believe ICV is the most suitable route of administration to achieve optimal biodistribution in key regions of the brain.Consistent with our clinical development strategy, in February 2024 we amended the protocol to expand the low dose Cohort 1 to include three additional patients for a total of eight patients and added the second high dose Cohort 2 of eight patients. These previously planned updates to include two concurrent dose cohorts are designed to provide what we believe will be a more robust dataset that will be able to inform a future registrational trial design. Three patients have been dosed in Corhort 1, and we remain on track to report interim clinical data from Cohort 1 in the fourth quarter of 2024 and additional data, including from Cohort 2, in the second half of 2025. NGN-401 was manufactured at our manufacturing facility and clinical-grade product is being used in the Phase 1/2 trial.

We believe that our EXACT platform has broad applicability in complex neurological diseases not otherwise easily addressable by conventional gene therapy. In addition to our Rett syndrome program, we have multiple programs in the discovery stage. We anticipate advancing one of these programs into clinical development in 2025.

In addition to NGN-401, we are also pursuing a conventional gene therapy program in an ongoing Phase 1/2 clinical trial of NGN-101 for the treatment of CLN5 Batten disease. This patient population has significant unmet need, and experiences extensive neurological and physical impairment leading to blindness, loss of motor function and early mortality. Our Phase 1/2 clinical trial of NGN-101 is the first trial to assess the treatment of both neurodegenerative and ocular disease manifestations of Batten disease. A third-party manufacturer produced product for the NGN-101 program to initiate the Phase 1/2 clinical trial. Dosing for this program commenced in the second quarter of 2022, and we expect preliminary data in the second half of 2024.

After the Phase 1/2 trials, we may pursue, and the FDA may allow, adaptation to integrate a pivotal trial design within a single study as opposed to a separate classic Phase 3 trial; however, regulatory authorities may recommend changes to the study designs for NGN-401 or NGN-101, including the number and size of registrational clinical trials required to be conducted in such programs.

We have also established a fully operational current Good Manufacturing Practice (“cGMP”) facility in Houston, Texas which we use to manufacture current and future product for research, toxicology and clinical studies. We believe that our in-house manufacturing capabilities enable control of product quality and development timelines and provides strategic pipeline and financial flexibility and clinical-to-commercial continuity.

Tableof Contents

In December 2020, we entered into a research collaboration agreement, the Master Research Collaboration (the “MCA”) with the University of Edinburgh to support our pipeline development and expansion, and to accelerate scientific innovation to continue to improve upon conventional gene therapy. In November 2023, we extended the MCA though December 2026. The University of Edinburgh has a vibrant community of over 500 neuroscience researchers and is widely recognized as a preeminent center for neuroscience research, especially in areas of neurodegeneration and in neurodevelopmental disorders, such as Rett syndrome. For example, researchers currently in neuroscience centers at the University of Edinburgh conducted the seminal preclinical work for Rett syndrome, including discovery of the MECP2 protein, its function as a transcriptional repressor, developing the first and most widely adopted animal model of Rett syndrome, demonstrating for the first time the reversibility of phenotypes in any neurodevelopmental disorder as well as the first ever preclinical gene therapy efforts in Rett syndrome. Under the terms of the agreement, this collaboration allows us the option to in-license product candidates from Dr. Stuart Cobb’s laboratory, where he has a dual appointment as a Professor in Translational Neuroscience at the Patrick Wild Centre and Centre for Discovery Brain Sciences, in addition to serving as our Chief Scientific Officer. Dr. Cobb may be entitled to receive in the future a percentage of certain license-related payments from Neurogene to the University of Edinburgh in accordance with the University of Edinburgh’s standard policies for professor inventors.

Completion of our Reverse Merger and Pre-Closing Financing

On December 18, 2023, we completed our business combination with Neurogene OpCo in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of July 17, 2023 (the “Merger Agreement”), by and among the Company, Project North Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company (“Merger Sub”), and Neurogene OpCo, pursuant to which, among other matters, Merger Sub merged with and into Neurogene OpCo, with Neurogene OpCo surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company (the “Reverse Merger”). In connection with the completion of the Reverse Merger, the Company changed its name from “Neoleukin Therapeutics, Inc.” to “Neurogene Inc.,” and the business conducted by the Company became primarily the business conducted by Neurogene OpCo. Immediately prior to Closing, the Company effected a 1-for-4 reverse stock split (the “Reverse Stock Split”). Unless noted otherwise, all references in this Annual Report on Form 10-K to share and per share amounts reflect the Reverse Stock Split.

Concurrently with the execution and delivery of the Merger Agreement, and in order to provide Neurogene OpCo with additional capital for its development programs, Neurogene OpCo entered into a subscription agreement (the “Subscription Agreement”) with certain investors named therein (the “Investors”), pursuant to which, subject to the terms and conditions of the Subscription Agreement, immediately prior to the effective time of the Reverse Merger, Neurogene OpCo issued and sold, and the Investors purchased, 2,792,206 shares of Neurogene OpCo common stock and 1,811,739 pre-funded warrants, exercisable for 1,811,739 shares of Neurogene OpCo common stock, at a purchase price of approximately $20.63 per share or $20.63 per warrant, for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $95.0 million (the “pre-closing financing”).

On December 18, 2023, immediately prior to Closing and prior to the Reverse Stock Split, the Company also entered into a contingent value rights agreement (the “CVR Agreement”) with a rights agent, pursuant to which holders of common stock or pre-funded warrants of the Company prior to Closing received one non-transferable contingent value right (each, a “CVR”) for each outstanding share of Company common stock held by such stockholder or warrant holder immediately prior to Closing and before giving effect to the Reverse Stock Split. Holders of options to purchase our common stock outstanding immediately prior to the effective time of the reverse merger who elect to exercise those options following the reverse merger will also receive four CVRs for each share of our common stock issued upon exercise of such option (in order to preserve the ratio of CVRs to shares of common stock prior to the Reverse Merger), subject to certain conditions set forth in the CVR Agreement. Each CVR represents the contractual right to receive (i) certain net savings, if any, realized by the Company by June 30, 2029 in connection with certain legacy lease obligations related to the business of the Company prior to the Reverse Merger (the “Lease CVR”), including those related to a sublease entered into in October 2023, (ii) 100% of net proceeds, if any, derived from any consideration paid as a result of the sale of our pre-merger legacy assets pursuant any agreements entered into before Closing, and 80% of net proceeds, if any, derived from any consideration paid as a result of the sale of our pre-merger legacy assets pursuant any agreements entered into within one year after Closing (the “Intellectual Property CVR”), and (iii) certain net proceeds, if any, derived from an anticipated sales tax refund from Washington State relating to tax returns filed by the Company prior to Closing (the “Sales Tax CVR”).

See Item 8 of Part II “Financial Statements––Note 1 – Reverse Merger and Pre-Closing Financing” for additional information.

Tableof Contents

Our Team

Neurogene was founded in January 2018 by Dr. Rachel McMinn with the vision of harnessing the power of gene therapy to turn today’s devastating neurological diseases into treatable conditions in the future. We have built a research and development engine through our research collaboration with the University of Edinburgh, which has renowned expertise in neurodevelopmental disorders, and through the leadership of experienced management with extensive expertise in gene therapy manufacturing, we have also developed chemistry manufacturing and controls (“CMC”) capabilities and established a fully operational cGMP facility. We are led by a strong management team with deep operational and company building experience as well as significant expertise in research and development in the fields of rare disease and genetic medicine. The members of our management team also provide leadership for certain key functions that are required to develop and obtain regulatory approval for novel treatments, including clinical development and regulatory affairs. Our management team has a deep background of experience in biopharmaceutical companies, including Amicus, AstraZeneca, Auspex, Avexis, Axovant, Cerevel Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Homology Medicines, ImClone Systems, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Johnson and Johnson, Lonza, NPS Pharma, Pharmasset, and Takeda. Together, our team has a track record in the discovery, development, and commercialization of multiple therapies for devastating disorders.

Our Approach

We have a bold vision to harness the power of gene therapy together with our EXACT technology to turn today’s complex devastating neurological diseases into treatable conditions. Fundamental to accomplishing this goal are three capabilities that provide us with important competitive advantages that we believe support our disciplined product development approach and improve the probability of technical and regulatory success of our product candidates.

1.Our EXACT Technology. We developed the EXACT technology, in collaboration with the University of Edinburgh, with the goal of solving the problem of variable gene expression resulting from the inherent limitations we believe exist with conventional gene therapy. We believe our EXACT technology has the potential to overcome this challenge by widening the otherwise narrow therapeutic window for transgene expression in certain complex neurological diseases. The EXACT technology is predicted to be delivery agnostic and compatible with viral and non-viral delivery platforms.

2.Optimal Drug Delivery Approaches to Treat CNS Disorders. We believe in utilizing the most optimal routes of administration to deliver our product candidates which we believe will best target the underlying pathophysiology and biology of the disease. We rigorously study potential central nervous system (“CNS”) indications and their underlying pathologies prior to choosing a candidate and deliberately choose what we believe is the most appropriate route of administration to increase the probability of technical and regulatory success.

3.Scalable and Flexible Manufacturing. We believe that integrating in-house cGMP manufacturing capabilities enables superior oversight of product quality and greater control of development timelines, allows for strategic pipeline flexibility, and promotes continuity in our process from preclinical to clinical to commercial manufacturing in the future. Besides cGMP manufacturing, our core development capabilities include quality control, process, analytical, and bioanalytical development labs with experienced teams. We believe that our in-house manufacturing capabilities also possess the potential to avoid comparability challenges caused by the introduction of significant platform-based changes during the product development phase that other gene therapy companies have encountered. We believe our in-house manufacturing also provides increased flexibility to manufacture products more efficiently and more cost effectively.

Neurogene’s EXACT Technology Acts as a Genetic Thermostat

Tableof Contents

EXACT’s transgene control elements consist of an embedded non-mammalian miRNA, and its complementary recognition sites. This combination is designed to avoid off-target gene regulation. The transgene and the miRNA are co-expressed from the same construct under the control of the same promoter. Because the miRNA and recognition sites are fully complementary with no mismatches, the miRNA-bound transcripts are predicted to be rapidly destroyed, limiting the number of available transgene mRNA copies. These remaining mRNA transcripts are then translated into transgene derived protein. Importantly, the more transgene that is expressed in a given cell, the more miRNA that is produced simultaneously, leading to greater destruction of transcripts. This relationship ultimately creates a genetic thermostat, which attenuates transgene expression, and thereby is designed to avoid the significant toxicity associated with variable gene expression related to conventional gene therapy.

The non-mammalian miRNA regulatory element that is part of an EXACT gene circuit is designed to minimize affinity to human mRNAs, and thereby avoid off-target gene regulation. We believe such construct design elements differentiate our EXACT technology from other miRNA mediated regulation approaches. The EXACT technology is also predicted to be delivery agnostic and compatible with viral and non-viral delivery platforms.

Using EXACT, we are advancing a pipeline of therapeutic programs intended to treat complex neurological disorders that we believe will not be suitable for treatment with conventional gene therapy.

Our Pipeline

NGN-401

NGN-401 is our lead program utilizing the EXACT technology and is packaged in an adeno-associated virus 9 (“AAV9”) capsid. In preclinical studies, we assessed a single ICV administration of NGN-401 in multiple preclinical models, including the male knockout mouse model for efficacy, the female Mecp2 mouse model for tolerability, and non-human primates (“NHPs”) for biodistribution and toxicity.

Rett syndrome is an X-linked neurodevelopmental disorder caused by a pathogenic mutation in one copy of the MECP2 gene that leads to deficiency of the MeCP2 protein in approximately 50% of cells. MeCP2 is a critical protein responsible for normal function in the brain and other parts of the nervous system. Rett syndrome has an estimated global incidence of 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 15,000 live female births. In the United States, the prevalence of Rett syndrome is estimated to be approximately 6,000 to 9,000 patients. The estimated prevalence in the European Union (“EU”) and select foreign countries is estimated in total to be greater than in the United States. Rett syndrome in females is marked by several cardinal clinical features, including significant impairments in communication (for example, an inability to communicate verbally or with their hands), gross and fine motor function, autonomic function, and a range of other disease manifestations. While there is one treatment approved to treat Rett syndrome, there remains a significant unmet need for new treatment options that target the root cause of the disease.

Tableof Contents

Rett syndrome as modeled in mice has been shown to be inducible and reversible, demonstrating that the MECP2 gene is critical throughout lifespan and offering the prospect of disease reversibility in humans. However, gene replacement therapy is not straightforward for Rett syndrome because too little MeCP2 causes Rett syndrome, while too much MeCP2 causes a similarly devastating disease known as MECP2 duplication syndrome. This MECP2 gene sensitivity results in a narrow therapeutic window for gene therapy in Rett syndrome. Therefore, we believe the goal in developing a gene replacement therapy for Rett syndrome is to supply enough MeCP2 to deficient cells, without causing toxicity to healthy cells. Achieving this goal requires precise control over the level of MECP2 expression on a cell-by-cell basis. We designed EXACT with achieving this goal in mind, and have selected Rett syndrome as the indication for our first EXACT product candidate.

EXACT Technology for Rett Syndrome

As shown in the left-hand panel above, an inherent limitation of AAV administration is that it produces variable levels of transduction across cells. Despite this variability, our preclinical data demonstrate the potential of EXACT to normalize the levels of MeCP2 protein (middle panel). The right-hand panel illustrates the aspiration of EXACT for Rett syndrome—to deliver transgene levels of functional MeCP2 that, when expressed on top of endogenous levels, can be well tolerated, while simultaneously delivering a therapeutically relevant level of MeCP2 to deficient cells to allow for efficacy. We believe our EXACT technology has the potential to overcome the limitations of the narrow therapeutic window for gene therapy in Rett syndrome and offers the possibility of making gene replacement a viable modality to treat complex disorders such as Rett syndrome.

NGN-401 Product Design

NGN-401 contains the EXACT regulatory elements shown above, which regulate the expression of the full-length human MECP2 gene. Expression is driven by a mammalian promoter that has been used in gene therapy clinical trials. This genetic construct is packaged into an AAV9 capsid.

Tableof Contents

NGN-401 Preclinical Data in Rett Syndrome Mouse Models

The male knockout mouse is the gold standard for evaluating efficacy in Rett syndrome because it has a robust phenotype that expresses certain cardinal features of Rett syndrome, including motor, gait, and breathing abnormalities. This model has a more severe disease course compared to human females with Rett syndrome, because 100% of male mouse cells are MeCP2 deficient. In contrast, human females have MeCP2 deficiency in approximately 50% of cells, due to a mosaic pattern of X-inactivation whereby the healthy MECP2 gene or the pathogenic gene is randomly selected to be silenced. Signs of disease in the male mouse model have been documented in the early post-natal period, with mice beginning to die or reach the humane endpoint as early as four to five weeks of life, with a median survival of approximately nine weeks.

In the preclinical study described above, male knockout mice were administered a one-time administration of NGN-401 in the early postnatal period using an ICV procedure with either vehicle, or product doses of 1e11 or 3e11 vector genomes (“vg”) per mouse. The profile for NGN-401 in this mouse model demonstrated a dose-dependent improvement in survival (shown in the left-hand panel above) with concomitant improvements in Rett syndrome-like phenotypes compared to vehicle treated control animals.

To test tolerability, we evaluated the same doses of NGN-401 that demonstrated dose-dependent improvement in the male mouse model in a female mouse model (shown in the right-hand panel above). These female mice are genotypically comparable to human female patients, allowing us to demonstrate tolerability where approximately 50% of cells have normal levels of MeCP2 expression. NGN-401 (shown in green above) was well tolerated, with no negative effects on survival. In comparison, when we conducted a similar experiment using conventional gene therapy (depicted in purple above), which we refer to as “unregulated,” these mice experienced rapid toxicity and died or reached the humane endpoint within two to three weeks. These deaths were associated with significant overexpression of MeCP2, demonstrating the importance of controlling MECP2 transgene expression to provide tolerable protein levels, which we believe the EXACT technology is able to accomplish.

Tableof Contents

In the male knockout mouse model, phenotypic improvement was measured using an observational scoring system evaluating six disease phenotypes (referred to as the “RTT Score”). The aggregate observational score, shown in the left panel above, was improved with NGN-401 treatment, with the greatest amelioration of symptoms observed in translationally relevant domains of mobility, gait, and breathing (shown in the top right panel above).

NGN-401 Preclinical Wild-Type Non-Human Primate 30-day Data

In an NHP study shown in the figure above, we evaluated NGN-401 and unregulated conventional gene therapy constructs that do not contain EXACT regulatory elements. The first NHP study was a 30-day expression and tolerability study, comparing the same doses of NGN-401 to the unregulated control. Results from this study show tight mRNA expression levels of NGN-401, with greater and more variable expression for the unregulated vector.

*Regulated includes NGN-401 and another EXACT vector; data at 30 days

NCV: nerve conduction velocity

Tableof Contents

These higher levels of MeCP2 in the unregulated treatment group were associated with early signs of toxicity in NHPs, shown by reduced or complete loss of sural nerve function as measured by nerve conduction velocity in most animals.

We also evaluated vector biodistribution and MECP2 mRNA for NGN-401 treated animals to assess how biodistribution and expression maps to key brain regions underlying Rett syndrome pathobiology in NHPs. We found that NGN-401 viral biodistribution tracks to key areas of the brain and spinal cord that underlie cardinal features of Rett syndrome, including speech, motor and autonomic function (shown in the left-hand panel above). In addition, we observed significant levels of transgene-derived MECP2 mRNA in key brain regions (shown in the right-hand panel above), supporting the prospect for therapeutic relevance to cardinal features of human disease and is consistent with the phenotypic improvements observed in the male knockout mouse model. We also observed that MECP2 mRNA levels derived from NGN-401 were below endogenous wild type NHP MECP2 levels, underscoring the potential safety profile of dampened MECP2 expression in these animals.

In a second NHP study, we conducted a Good Laboratory Practice (“GLP”) toxicology study with cohorts at two doses with endpoints at three and six months. This study assessed but found no signs or symptoms of MECP2 overexpression with a >4x safety margin from our starting clinical dose. Instead, we observed a typical profile for AAV9 administered product, with minimal to slight microscopic findings in the dorsal root ganglion (“DRG”), spinal cord, brain, and peripheral nerves. These observations were not dose dependent and there were no related clinical or electrophysiological observations. Early transient aminotransferase elevations were also observed, which returned to baseline or near baseline values within approximately the first three weeks without intervention. Based on these findings, the high dose cohort was considered the no-observed adverse effect level (“NOAEL”). Both of these observations (liver and DRG) are commonly observed in NHP models with AAV administration. While liver enzyme elevations have been connected with liver toxicity for certain gene therapy products in humans, these findings are typically resolved in humans without clinical sequalae. We do not believe that DRG toxicity has been reported in humans in connection with AAV administration.

NGN-401 Phase 1/2 Clinical Trial

We are advancing NGN-401 for the treatment of Rett syndrome. We received clearance for our investigational new drug (“ IND”) application from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) in January 2023, and we announced clearance of our clinical trial application (“CTA”) from the United Kingdom (“UK”) Medical and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) in January 2024 to dose pediatric female patients ages four to 10 years old with Rett syndrome, and the study is currently enrolling patients. While it is typical for regulatory bodies to require establishing safety in adults prior to advancing to a pediatric population, the FDA and MRHA accepted our application for a pediatric trial based on our demonstration of a strong scientific rationale, a positive benefit-risk framework, and preclinical evidence that support a prospect of direct benefit in children with Rett syndrome.We believe this path may maximize our potential to determine efficacy signals early in the development process, potentially accelerating our ability to generate relevant clinical data. NGN-401 has been granted Orphan Drug Designation from the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”), Rare Pediatric Disease Designation and Fast Track designation from the FDA.

Tableof Contents

The ongoing Phase 1/2 clinical trial is an open-label,multi-center clinical trial that is planned to assess the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of two doses of NGN-401 delivered using a one-time ICV procedure in female pediatric patients, ages four to 10 years old,with a confirmed diagnosis of classic Rett syndrome and a documented disease-causing mutation in the MECP2 gene. Patients must also have a Clinical Global Impression-Severity score of four to six. We have dosed three patients in Cohort 1, one each quarter beginning in the third quarter of 2023, with no treatment-emergent or procedure-related serious adverse events or signs of overexpression-related toxicity.

Consistent with our clinical development strategy to build flexibility and optionality early in the program, in February 2024 we amended the protocol and met a program milestone to expand Cohort 1 to include a total of eight patients and added a high dose cohort of eight patients, which we refer to as Cohort 2, for a total of 16 female pediatric patients. These previously planned updates to evaluate two doses concurrently are designed to enable a more robust dataset to inform a future registrational study. The dosing stagger has been removed from Cohort 1, enabling the remaining patients in the cohort to be dosed in parallel. We expect to complete enrollment of Cohort 1 in the second half of 2024.

Cohort 1 is evaluating a dose of 1e15 total vector genomes and Cohort 2 is evaluating a higher dose of 3e15 total vector genomes. These doses were chosen based on the results of our preclinical studies of NGN-401 and are each expected to be efficacious. We proactively updated the immunosuppression regimen in Cohort 2 to include a more targeted approach as a preventative measure to aid in avoiding potential AAV-related clinical events that have been observed with other AAV-based products in this dose range.Specifically, patients enrolled in Cohort 2 will receive rituximab and sirolimus, along with a shortened course of corticosteroids.The immunosuppression regimen of corticosteroids alone for Cohort 1 remains unchanged.

In addition, there are specific inclusion criteria related to trofinetide, a medicine approved by the FDA for Rett syndrome in March 2023. Patients enrolling in the Phase 1/2 clinical trial may be trofinetide naïve or trofinetide failures, with “failures” defined as having tried trofinetide and discontinued for tolerability or lack of efficacy or other reasons. Following NGN-401 dosing, trofinetide may be initiated after a specified time period and with the support of the treating clinician. Key assessments in the NGN-401 clinical trial will be taken at three, six, nine, and 12 months, with efficacy assessments of interest including autonomic function, hand function, communication, and gross motor function.

In January 2024, we announced the that the UK MHRA approved our CTA for NGN-401 in pediatric females with Rett syndrome, which allows us to enroll participants of the Phase 1/2 clinical trial in the UK.

We remain on track to report interim clinical data from Cohort 1 in the fourth quarter of 2024 and additional data, including from Cohort 2, in the second half of 2025.

EXACT Discovery Pipeline

We have a skilled team of scientists, both internally and in conjunction with our collaboration with the University of Edinburgh, with extensive gene therapy experience. Our team is focused on expanding our transgene regulation pipeline and leveraging EXACT beyond its NGN-401 clinical candidate for Rett syndrome. We expect our ongoing discovery efforts will support our ability to nominate one new development candidate for a commercially attractive indication for entry into the clinic in 2025.

NGN-101

NGN-101 is our non-EXACT, conventional gene therapy development candidate for the treatment of CLN5 Batten disease, designed to deliver the CLN5 gene and packaged in an AAV9 capsid. NGN-101 is currently being evaluated in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial using a dual route of administration to deliver NGN-101 via single ICV and intravitreal (“IVT”) administrations to treat the neurogenerative and ocular disease manifestations of Batten in pediatric patients between the age of three and nine years old who have a confirmed genetic diagnosis of CLN5 Batten disease.We have completed enrollment in the first two dosing cohorts and are currently enrolling a higher dosing cohort and expect interim clinical data in the second half of 2024.

Tableof Contents

In the fourth quarter of 2023, we completed a positive meeting with the FDA regarding the future potency assay. The FDA accepted our proposed potency assay strategy and provided alignment with the testing approach, which will allow release of all future NGN-101 batches. To enable a go/no-go decision to advance the program into a registration study, we are planning to request a clinical/regulatory strategy meeting with the FDA in the second half of 2024. The focus of this meeting will be to align with the FDA on the expected clinical requirements to support a streamlined registration pathway, which will be necessary to move this program forward into a pivotal clinical trial.

In preclinical studies, we assessed a single ICV administration, a single IVTadministration, and the combination of ICV and IVT dosing of NGN-101 in a CLN5 Batten sheep model for efficacy and NHPs for biodistribution and toxicity.

Batten disease is a family of rare neurodegenerative diseases caused by pathogenic changes in one of a series of genes that results in the accumulation of toxic deposits across multiple organ systems. CLN5 Batten disease is a rare, pediatric-onset and rapidly progressive condition caused by a pathogenic mutation in the CLN5 gene, leading to loss of function. It is characterized by loss of vision, seizures, and progressive decline in intellectual and motor capabilities beginning in childhood, leading to substantial impairments and early mortality. The incidence of Batten disease in estimated to be 1:100,000, with CLN5 Batten disease a small subset.

Currently, CLN5 Batten disease has no approved disease-specific treatment options.

Preclinical CLN5 Data in Sheep Disease Model

There is a naturally occurring Borderdale sheep model that is deficient in the CLN5 protein and shows several of the symptoms found in human CLN5 Batten disease, including progressive vision loss, motor and gait abnormalities, and premature death. These animals typically reach the humane endpoint by 16-19 months, with a maximal life expectancy of 22 months. A clinical scoring system was developed by Lincoln University comprising 10 physical domains to evaluate the disease phenotype of these sheep, although only six domains developed a progressive change over time in the disease model. Data for a modified ovine Batten disease rating scale, consisting of the cumulative score of these six domains, are shown below, with a score of 24 reflecting a phenotypically normal animal.

In our preclinical study, sheep were administered a one-time IVT administration alone, ICV administration alone, or combination of IVT and ICV administration of an AAV9 vector containing an ovine version of the CLN5 transgene (AAV9/oCLN5). AAV9/oCLN5 slowed or halted key features of disease progression in the naturally occurring CLN5-deficient sheep model. While IVT administration alone preserved retinal layers within the eye, sheep ultimately succumbed to neurological disease and did not experience a survival benefit. In comparison, ICV administration alone significantly extended survival, but sheep experienced vision loss and blindness and subsequently experienced loss of function in other domains. Animals treated with concurrent administration employing both ICV and IVT routes of delivery experienced the most robust survival and phenotypic benefits, including preservation of translationally relevant phenotypes—visual and motor function.

Tableof Contents

Animals that received AAV9/oCLN5 at either an early symptomatic (six months of age) or advanced symptomatic (nine months of age) disease state exhibited delayed disease progression and stabilized clinical function, demonstrated above in the clinical scoring data. AAV9/oCLN5 treatment preserved vision in the treated eye and mitigated declines in body weight, intracranial volume, and retinal function, as well as ameliorated brain and retinal pathology.

We conducted an additional study (shown above) in the ovine model of CLN5 disease to evaluate an approximately 4x higher ICV dose of AAV9/oCLN5 administered at an early symptomatic disease stage (six months of age), as well as to further explore IVT dosing. Data in this preclinical model demonstrated that the 4x higher ICV dose of AAV9/oCLN5 along with a modest IVT dose increase was generally well tolerated in this disease model and demonstrated an improved therapeutic effect as compared to the cohort of ovine animals receiving a similar ICV dose as previously tested, and approximately only 30% of the IVT dose. These data provide additional support for our clinical strategy for dose escalation in our ongoing Phase 1/2 clinical trial of NGN-101.

Bridging Sheep Study Comparing Ovine and Human CLN5 Transgene Administration

We also conducted a bridging sheep efficacy study that compared equivalent doses of AAV9/oCLN5 to NGN-101, the clinical product candidate containing the human CLN5 transgene. Based on the results of this study, we found the phenotypical improvements observed in the CLN5 knockout sheep were similar between the two transgenes.

Tableof Contents

We conducted a GLP toxicology and biodistribution study with NGN-101 in NHPs with three- and six-month timepoints. NGN-101 was generally well-tolerated in this study. Non-adverse transient aminotransferase elevations were observed, which were not associated with anatomic pathology findings. In addition, one animal inadvertently dosed with a two-fold higher dose than our highest planned IVT clinical dose experienced a moderately severe intraocular inflammatory response, which subsided with anti-inflammatory treatment. Based on these findings, the high dose cohort was considered the NOAEL.

Utilizing Optimal Drug Delivery to Treat CNS Disorders

To increase the probability of technical and regulatory success, we believe in utilizing the most optimal route of administration for AAV9 that best targets the underlying pathophysiology and biology of the disease.

The pathobiology of both Rett syndrome and CLN5 Batten disease involves structures across the nervous system. Therefore, it was critical to us to evaluate the optimal route of administration to achieve broad AAV9 distribution to key regions relevant for disease. To better appreciate each route of administration and to take a rational approach to choosing the optimal route of administration for our programs, we conducted a one-month study to evaluate a single total dose of an AAV9 vector containing a human CLN5 transgene comparing multiple routes of administration in NHPs. Shown above are vector genome biodistribution data specifically for unilateral ICV and intrathecal lumbar (“IT-L”) delivery. ICV administration, shown in green, demonstrated broad biodistribution throughout the brain and spinal cord. When compared to IT-L delivery (shown in red above), ICV delivery achieved distribution that was significantly better to key areas of the nervous system underlying Rett syndrome and CLN5 Batten disease pathology. These areas include the cortex, hippocampus, and areas of the brain stem (pons and medulla). These data supported the selection of the ICV route of administration for the NGN-401 and NGN-101 programs.

Intellectual Property

We actively seek to protect our proprietary technology, inventions, and other intellectual property that is commercially important to the development of our business by a variety of means, including seeking, maintaining, and defending patent rights, whether developed internally or licensed from third parties. In particular, our patent strategy includes the filing of patent applications covering regulatory elements embodied by our EXACT technology and our unique gene sequences. We also may rely on trade secrets and know-how relating to our proprietary technology platform, including our EXACT platform technology, on continuing technological innovation and on in-licensing opportunities that may be important for the development of our business to develop, strengthen and maintain the strength of our position in the field of gene therapy. We also intend to seek patent protection or rely upon trade secret rights to protect other technologies that we may use to discover and validate targets, and that we may use to manufacture and develop novel gene therapy products. We are a party to license agreements that give us rights to use specific technologies in our gene therapy products and in manufacturing our products. Additional regulatory protection may also be afforded through data exclusivity, market exclusivity and patent term extensions where available.

Tableof Contents

As of December 31, 2023, Neurogene licenses 17 patent applications, including Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”), U.S., and international patent applications as described below. Our policy is to file patent applications to protect technology, inventions and improvements to inventions that may be commercially important to the development of our business. Patent applications and patents directed to specific product candidates are summarized below:

EXACT Technology

We in-license from the University of Edinburgh 12 pending patent applications worldwide directed to regulatory control of transgene expression (including composition of matter, use, and process of making the therapeutic products). Any patents based on these applications, if issued, are expected to expire in 2041, without taking into account any possible patent term adjustment, regulatory extensions, or terminal disclaimers, and assuming payment of all annuities and/or maintenance fees.

NGN-401 for Rett Syndrome

We also in-license from the University of Edinburgh one pending PCT international patent application worldwide directed to recombinant MECP2 therapeutic constructs and methods for treating Rett syndrome and related conditions (including composition of matter, use, and process of making the therapeutic products). Any patents based on this application, if issued, are expected to expire in 2043, without taking into account any possible patent term adjustment, regulatory extensions, or terminal disclaimers, and assuming payment of all annuities and/or maintenance fees.

NGN-101 for CLN5 Batten Disease

We in-license from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill four pending patent applications worldwide directed to an optimized CLN5therapeutic constructfor treating Batten disease (including composition of matter, use, and process of making the therapeutic products). Any patents based on these applications, if issued, are expected to expire in 2039, without taking into account any possible patent term adjustment, regulatory extensions, or terminal disclaimers, and assuming payment of all annuities and/or maintenance fees.

Individual patents extend for varying periods depending on the date of filing of the patent application or the date of patent issuance and the legal term of patents in the countries in which they are obtained. Generally, patents issued for regularly-filed applications in the U.S. are effective for 20 years from the earliest effective non-provisional filing date. In addition, in certain instances, a patent term can be extended to recapture a portion of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s delay in issuing the patent as well as a portion of the term effectively lost as a result of the FDA regulatory review period. However, as to the FDA component, the restoration period cannot be longer than five years and the total patent term including the restoration period must not exceed 14 years following FDA approval. The duration of foreign patents varies in accordance with provisions of applicable local law, but typically is also 20 years from the earliest effective filing date. The actual protection afforded by a patent varies on a product-by-product basis, from country to country, and depends upon many factors, including the type of patent, the scope of its coverage, the availability of regulatory-related extensions, the availability of legal remedies in a particular country and the validity and enforceability of the patent.

We also protect our trade secrets and other proprietary technology and processes, in part, by confidentiality and invention assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors and other contractors. These agreements may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, or other contractors use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions.

Our commercial success will also depend in part on not infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. It is uncertain whether the issuance of any third-party patent would require us to alter our development or commercial strategies, alter our drugs or processes, obtain licenses, or cease certain activities. Our breach of any license agreements or failure to obtain a license to proprietary rights that we may require to develop or commercialize our future drugs may have a material adverse impact on our business, operations and financial condition.

Commercial

Should any of our product candidates be approved for commercialization, we intend to develop a plan to commercialize them in the U.S. and other key markets, through internal infrastructure and/or external partnerships in a manner that will enable us to realize the full commercial value of our programs. Given the company’s stage of development, we have not yet established a commercial organization or distribution capabilities. We currently hold worldwide development and commercialization rights, including through exclusive licenses, to all of our product candidates.

Tableof Contents

Manufacturing

Our fully-operational, cGMP manufacturing facility is located in Houston, Texas, and includes process and analytical development labs. The site is approximately 42,000 square feet, with 6,000 square feet of cleanroom space dedicated to cGMP production of clinical product. Our manufacturing facility is also designed for commercial-grade drug product in the future (if regulatory approval is obtained). The facility includes our experienced team of approximately 41 employees that support process development, analytical development, quality assurance, quality control, manufacturing, supply chain, and maintenance. In addition to our process and analytical development capabilities, we have established a bioanalytical group that allows us to analyze vector biodistribution, mRNA expression, and protein expression from in-vivo preclinical studies. We believe this internal capability provides us with a lower cost structure and greater control over timelines driven by execution of our corporate priorities through dedicated oversight by our employees. We have produced nonclinical material to support our preclinical studies, including product candidates manufactured for use for IND-enabling studies.

We believe that our in-house manufacturing capabilities enable us to control product quality and development timelines, allow for strategic pipeline flexibility, and provide us with continuity in our process from preclinical to clinical to commercial manufacturing in the future (if regulatory approval is obtained). With in-house manufacturing capabilities designed to transition from preclinical to clinical-stage trials, beginning with NGN-401 for the treatment of Rett syndrome, we believe weare well positioned to avoid future product comparability challenges that other gene therapy companies have faced. NGN-401 has been successfully manufactured at our manufacturing facility and clinical-grade product is available for dosing in our ongoing Phase 1/2 clinical trial for female children with Rett syndrome that is currently enrolling patients. Product for the NGN-101 CLN5 Batten disease program was produced by a third-party manufacturer. We expect to manufacture in our facility subsequent cGMP campaigns for NGN-401, in addition to those for our early discovery pipeline. We believe internalizing our manufacturing capabilities has two significant financial advantages: (1) it provides us with the potential to have maximum flexibility to manufacture product candidates at a reduced cost and (2) it affords us greater control over CMC investments as programs progress through development.

The manufacturing facility is designed to be flexible, scalable, and a multi-product facility that can support two major scalable AAV production processes: transient transfection process using mammalian cells (HEK293) and an insect cell (Sf9) baculovirus based AAV production system. The processing suites are fitted with equipment that supports single-use technology, which we believe reduces the risk of cross-contamination and allows for multiple products to be manufactured utilizing either process. In addition, we designed the fill-finish suite to allow for final product to be vialed in-house, which we believe eliminates the need for a contract manufacturer and excessive shipping of product between facilities. AAV9 vector intended for IND-enabling studies is generated utilizing the same platform process (either HEK293 or Sf9 based) that is expected to be used in the clinic up to a 50L scale in our process development labs. Based on current program needs, the cGMP platform processes are executed at a 200L scale, and we believe we have the ability to scale up or scale out as material needs increase.

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries generally, and the gene therapy field specifically, are characterized by rapid evolution of technologies, competition and strong defense of intellectual property. Any product candidates that we develop and commercialize will face competition from existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. While we believe our products, technology, scientific knowledge, talent and manufacturing capabilities differentiate us and provide us with competitive advantages, we face competition from other biotechnology companies, pharmaceutical and specialty pharmaceutical companies, as well as academic institutions. Our ability to compete will significantly depend upon our ability to complete necessary clinical trials and regulatory approval processes, and effectively market any drug that we may successfully develop.

While no disease-modifying therapies are currently available on the market for the treatment of Rett syndrome, we are aware of several companies that are in clinical or preclinical stages of developing gene therapies for the treatment of this disease. Taysha Gene Therapies, Inc. has a clinical-stage gene therapy program for the treatment of Rett syndrome. Stoke Therapeutics, Inc., in partnership with Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Acadia”), and Alcyone Therapeutics, Inc. have disclosed the existence of early preclinical or discovery-stage gene therapy programs for the treatment of Rett syndrome. In July 2023, Acadia announced the acquisition of worldwide rights to NNZ-2591 for Rett syndrome, which is an investigational synthetic analogue of cyclo-glycyl-proline being developed in several neurodevelopmental syndromes.

DAYBUE (trofinetide) was approved by the FDA in March 2023 and is a commercially available treatment in the U.S. from Acadia for the treatment of Rett syndrome in adults and pediatric patients two years and older. Additionally, in July 2023, Acadia acquired ex-North American rights to trofinetide and announced plans to submit a New Drug Submission for trofinetide in Canada within 18 months and plans for Europe, Asia and other regions to be announced at a later date. However, we do not view trofinetide as directly competitive to our product candidate given the distinct mechanism of action of NGN-401, which we believe addresses the root cause of disease by replacing the missing protein.

Tableof Contents

The primary competitive factors that will affect the commercial success of any product candidate for which we may receive marketing approval include the efficacy, safety and tolerability profile, dosing convenience, price, coverage, reimbursement and public opinion. Some of our existing or potential competitors have substantially greater financial, technical and human resources than we do and significantly greater experience in the discovery and development of product candidates, as well as in obtaining regulatory approvals of those product candidates in the U.S. and in foreign countries. Some of our current and potential future competitors also have significantly more experience commercializing drugs that have been approved for marketing. Further, mergers, acquisitions and collaborations or partnerships in the biopharmaceutical industry could result in even more resources being concentrated among a small number of our competitors.

Accordingly, competitors may be more successful than us in obtaining regulatory approval for therapies and in achieving widespread market acceptance of their drugs. It is also possible that the development of a cure or more effective treatment method for any of our targeted indications by a competitor could render our product candidate non-competitive or obsolete, or reduce the demand for our product candidate before we can recover our development and commercialization expenses.

License Agreements

License Agreement with The University of North Carolina

In May 2019, we entered into an Exclusive License Agreement with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (“UNC”) to obtain an exclusive, worldwide, royalty bearing license, with the right to grant sublicenses under certain patents to make, use, or sell products covered by such patents for prevention or treatment of disease or medical or genetic conditions, including CLN5 Batten disease or other diseases from dysfunction of the CLN5 gene. We are obligated to pay UNC up to $1.7 million in sales-related milestones for licensed products based on annual sales of the licensed product in excess of defined thresholds and low single-digit percentage royalties on net sales of licensed product for as long as there is a valid patent claim under the patent rights. We are also required to reimburse any patent expenses, as well as pay a nonrefundable annual maintenance fee which, when royalties become due and payable, will be creditable against such royalties.

License Agreement with The University of Edinburgh

In January 2020, we entered into an Option Agreement (the “Edinburgh Option Agreement”) with the University Court of the University of Edinburgh (“University of Edinburgh”) for an option to license certain patents covering the EXACT technology (the “Licensed Technology”). To secure the option, we were solely required to pay the costs associated with the filing, preparing, prosecution and maintenance of the patents covering the Licensed Technology during the option period.No other payments were payable under the Edinburgh Option Agreement. We subsequently exercised the option under the Edinburgh Option Agreement and in December 2020 entered into the MCA with the University of Edinburgh which superseded the Edinburgh Option Agreement.

Under the MCA, Neurogene and the University of Edinburgh agreed to collaborate on certain research and development projects (“Projects”), and we agreed to provide funding for such Projects for an initial term of 40 months, which term was extended in November 2023 for an additional 33 months to December 2026 and may be further extended by mutual agreement. In exchange for such funding, the University of Edinburgh granted us the option to exclusively license any intellectual property arising from such Projects. If we exercise an exclusive option for a particular Project, we will enter into a separate exclusive license agreement on its own terms with the University of Edinburgh. Under the MCA, we are obligated to pay semi-annual installment payments relating to funding of costs for personnel and lab consumables for the funding term of the MCA, through December 2026. Either party may terminate the MCA for convenience upon 90 days’ notice. If we were to terminate the MCA, we would be responsible for all non-cancellable costs and commitments related to any particular Project and any and all funding costs for any person working on such Project.

Tableof Contents

In March 2022, we exercised our option under the MCA with respect to certain Projects, and entered into a License Agreement (the “March 2022 Edinburgh License Agreement”) with University of Edinburgh, pursuant to which we license certain patents and know-how related to the EXACT technology and optimized MECP2 cassettes on an exclusive basis. Under the March 2022 Edinburgh License Agreement, we obtained an exclusive, worldwide license to the licensed patents to develop, manufacture, supply, sell, and commercialize any products that utilize the licensed patents (the “Licensed Products”) in exchange for low single-digit percentage royalties on future commercial net sales of the Licensed Products. Royalties are payable on a Licensed Product-by-Licensed Product and country-by-country basis until the latest of the expiration of the last licensed patent covering such Licensed Product in the country where the Licensed Product is sold, or, if no licensed patent exists or has expired in such country, then ten years from first commercial sale of such Licensed Product in such country (the “Royalty Term”). The term of the March 2022 Edinburgh License Agreement continues until the end of the Royalty Term and the expiration of all of the payment obligations under that license. We may terminate the March 2022 Edinburgh License Agreement for convenience upon 90 days’ notice. In connection with the license, we are also obligated to pay the University of Edinburgh up to $5.25 million in regulatory-related milestones and up to $25 million in sales-related milestones based on annual net sales of Licensed Products in excess of defined thresholds.

License Agreement with Virovek

In September 2020, we entered into a Non-Exclusive License Agreement with Virovek, Inc., pursuant to which we have a license to use certain patents and know-how on a non-exclusive basis related to our baculovirus process in exchange for low single-digit percentage royalties on future commercial net sales of each product using the baculovirus process, development milestone payments of up to $200,000 in the aggregate, and a nonrefundable annual license fee. This agreement continues until the later of (a) the expiration of the last to expire patent right that covers the manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale, importation, export or supply of any licensed product, (b) ten years after the first commercial sale of any licensed product, or (c) the expiration of all regulatory or market exclusivities. We may terminate this agreement for convenience upon 60 days’ notice.

License Agreement with Sigma-Aldrich Co

In January 2023, we entered into a Non-Exclusive License Agreement with Sigma-Aldrich Co. LLC, pursuant to which we have a license to certain patents and know-how on a non-exclusive basis related to certain cell lines used in our baculovirus process in exchange for a small annual fee on a product-by-product basis, payable once the first product candidate enters the clinic. In addition, on a product-by-product basis, we are obligated to pay up to $2.5 million in the aggregate for development-related milestones. This agreement remains in force for as long as we continue to possess and use the licensed technology. We may terminate this agreement for convenience upon 60 days’ notice.

Government Regulation

The FDA and other regulatory authorities at federal, state and local levels, as well as in foreign countries, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, import, export, safety, effectiveness, labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, record keeping, approval, advertising, promotion, marketing, post-approval monitoring and post-approval reporting of biological products (“biologics”), such as those we are developing. We, along with our third-party contractors, will be required to navigate the various preclinical, clinical and commercial approval requirements of the governing regulatory agencies of the countries in which we wish to conduct studies or seek approval or licensure of our product candidates. Generally, before a new therapeutic product can be marketed, considerable data demonstrating a biological product candidate’s quality, safety, purity and potency, or a small molecule drug candidate’s quality, safety and efficacy, must be obtained, organized into a format specific for each regulatory authority, submitted for review and approved by the regulatory authority. For biological product candidates, potency is similar to efficacy and is interpreted to mean the specific ability or capacity of the product, as indicated by appropriate laboratory tests or by adequately controlled clinical data obtained through the administration of the product in the manner intended, to effect a given result.

Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or post-marketing may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include, among other actions, the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications from the sponsor, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, untitled or warning letters, product recalls or market withdrawals, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement and civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on our company and our products or product candidates.

Tableof Contents

U.S. Biologics Regulation

In the U.S., biological products like the product candidates we are developing are subject to regulation under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) and the Public Health Service Act (“PHSA”) and their implementing regulations, as well as other federal, state, local, and foreign statutes and regulations. Within the FDA, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (“CBER”) regulates biological products, including gene and cell therapies. CBER’s Office of Therapeutic Products is responsible for oversight of gene therapy and related products, and the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee advises CBER on its reviews.The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, and local statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or following approval may subject an applicant to administrative action and judicial sanctions. The process required by the FDA before biologic product candidates may be marketed in the U.S. generally involves the following:

•completion of preclinical laboratory tests and animal studies performed in accordance with applicable regulations, including the FDA’s current Good Laboratory Practices;

•submission to the FDA of an IND, which must become effective before clinical trials may begin and must be updated annually or when significant changes are made;

•approval by an independent institutional review board (“IRB”), or ethics committee at each clinical site before the trial may be commenced;

•manufacture of the proposed biologic candidate in accordance with cGMPs, with methods and controls to ensure the product’s identity, strength, quality, purity, safety and efficacy or potency;

•performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials in accordance with applicable IND regulations, current Good Clinical Practice (“cGCP”) requirements and other clinical-trial related regulations to establish the safety, purity and efficacy or potency of the proposed biologic product candidate for its intended purpose;

•preparation of and submission to the FDA of a biologics license application (“BLA”), after completion of pivotal clinical trials;

•a determination by the FDA within 60 days of its receipt of a BLA to file the application for review;

•satisfactory completion of an FDA Advisory Committee review, if applicable;

•satisfactory completion of an FDA pre-license inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities at which the proposed product is produced to assess compliance with cGMPs, and to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the biological product’s continued safety, purity and efficacy or potency, and potential audit of selected clinical investigation sites to assess compliance with cGCPs;

•FDA review and approval of a BLA to permit commercial marketing of the product for a particular indication(s) for use in the United States.

•payment of user fees under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, unless waived;

•securing FDA approval of the BLA and licensure of the new biologic product; and

•compliance with any post-approval requirements, including, as applicable, the potential requirement to implement a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”), and any post-approval studies or other post-marketing commitments required by the FDA.

Tableof Contents

Preclinical and Clinical Development

Prior to beginning the first clinical trial with a product candidate, we must submit an IND to the FDA. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational new drug product to humans. The central focus of an IND submission is on the general investigational plan and the protocol or protocols for clinical trials. The IND also includes results of animal and in vitro studies assessing the toxicology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacology and pharmacodynamic characteristics of the product (as applicable), chemistry, manufacturing and controls information, and any available human data or literature to support the use of the investigational product. An IND must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day period, raises safety concerns or questions about the proposed clinical trial. In such a case, the IND may be placed on a partial or full clinical hold. In the event of a clinical hold, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns or questions before the clinical trial can begin. Submission of an IND therefore may or may not result in FDA authorization to begin a clinical trial.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with cGCPs, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in a clinical study. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A separate submission to an existing IND must be made for each successive clinical trial conducted during product development and for any subsequent protocol amendments. Furthermore, an independent IRB for each site proposing to conduct the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial and its informed consent form before the clinical trial begins at that site, and must monitor the study until completed.

Regulatory authorities, the IRB or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk or that the trial is unlikely to meet its stated objectives. Some studies also include oversight by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical study sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board, which provides authorization for whether or not a study may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the study and may recommend halting the clinical trial if it determines that there is an unacceptable safety risk for subjects or other grounds, such as the absence of efficacy. There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing preclinical studies and clinical trials and clinical study results to public registries. Sponsors of clinical trials of FDA-regulated products, including biological products, are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information, which is publicly available at www.clinicaltrials.gov.

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

For purposes of BLA approval, human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap.

•Phase 1. The investigational product is initially introduced into healthy human subjects or patients with the target disease or condition. These studies are designed to test the safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism and distribution of the investigational product in humans, the side effects associated with increasing doses, and, if possible, to gain early evidence on effectiveness.

•Phase 2. The investigational product is administered to a limited patient population with a specified disease or condition to evaluate the preliminary efficacy, optimal dosages and dosing schedule and to identify possible adverse side effects and safety risks. Multiple Phase 2 clinical trials may be conducted to obtain information prior to beginning larger and more expensive Phase 3 clinical trials.

•Phase 3. The investigational product is administered to an expanded patient population to further evaluate dosage, to provide statistically significant evidence of clinical efficacy and to further test for safety, generally at multiple geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. These clinical trials are intended to establish the overall risk/benefit ratio of the investigational product and to provide an adequate basis for product approval.

Tableof Contents

In some cases, the FDA may require, or companies may voluntarily pursue, additional clinical trials after a product is approved to gain more information about the product. These so-called Phase 4 studies may be made a condition to approval of the BLA. Concurrent with clinical trials, companies may complete additional animal studies and develop additional information about the biological characteristics of the product candidate, and must finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final product, or for biologics, the safety, purity and efficacy or potency. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

During all phases of clinical development, regulatory agencies require extensive monitoring and auditing of all clinical activities, clinical data and clinical study investigators. Written IND safety reports must be promptly submitted to the FDA and the investigators for serious and unexpected suspected adverse reactions, any findings from other studies, tests in laboratory animals or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human subjects, or any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The sponsor must submit an IND safety report within 15 calendar days after the sponsor determines that the information qualifies for reporting. The sponsor also must notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction within seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information.

BLA Submission and Review

Assuming successful completion of all required testing in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, the results of product development, preclinical studies and clinical trials are submitted to the FDA as part of a BLA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. FDA approval of a BLA must be obtained before a biologic may be marketed in the U.S. The BLA must include all relevant data available from pertinent preclinical studies and clinical trials, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls, and proposed labeling, among other things. Data can come from company-sponsored clinical studies intended to test the safety and effectiveness of the product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated and sponsored by investigators. The submission of a BLA requires payment of a substantial application user fee to the FDA, unless a waiver or exemption applies.

In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act (“PREA”), a BLA or supplement to a BLA must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the biological product candidate for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act requires that a sponsor who is planning to submit a marketing application for a biological product that includes a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration submit an initial pediatric study plan (“PSP”) within sixty days after an end-of-Phase 2 meeting or, if there is no such meeting, as early as practicable before the initiation of the Phase 3 or Phase 2/3 study as may be agreed between the sponsor and FDA. The initial PSP must include an outline of the pediatric study or studies that the sponsor plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, age groups, relevant endpoints and statistical approach, or a justification for not including such detailed information, and any request for a deferral of pediatric assessments or a full or partial waiver of the requirement to provide data from pediatric studies along with supporting information. The FDA and the sponsor must reach an agreement on the PSP before initiation of pediatric studies. A sponsor can request amendments to an agreed-upon initial PSP at any time if changes to the pediatric plan need to be considered based on data collected from preclinical studies, early phase clinical trials and/or other clinical development programs. Amendments should not be considered agreed upon until the FDA issues a letter stating that the amendments are acceptable. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to any biological product for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted.

Within 60 days following submission of the BLA, the FDA reviews the application to determine if it is substantially complete before the agency accepts it for filing. The FDA may refuse to file any BLA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission and may request additional information. In this event, the BLA must be resubmitted with the additional information. Once a BLA has been accepted for filing, the FDA’s goal is to review standard applications within ten months after the filing date, or, if the application qualifies for priority review, six months after the FDA accepts the application for filing. In both standard and priority reviews, the review process may also be extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. The FDA reviews a BLA to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe, pure and potent and the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packed or held meets standards designed to assure the product’s continued safety, purity and efficacy or potency. The FDA may convene an advisory committee to provide clinical insight on application review questions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Tableof Contents

Before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with cGCPs. If the FDA determines that the application, manufacturing process or manufacturing facilities are not acceptable, it typically will outline the deficiencies in the submission and often will request additional testing or information. Notwithstanding the submission of any requested additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

After the FDA evaluates a BLA and conducts inspections of manufacturing facilities where the product and/or its drug substance will be produced, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for one or more specific indications. A Complete Response Letter will describe all of the deficiencies that the FDA has identified in the BLA, except that where the FDA determines that the data supporting the application are inadequate to support approval, the FDA may issue the Complete Response Letter without first conducting required inspections, testing submitted product lots and/or reviewing proposed labeling. In issuing a Complete Response Letter, the FDA may recommend actions that the applicant might take to place the BLA in condition for approval, including requests for additional information or clarification. If a Complete Response Letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application or request an opportunity for a hearing. The FDA may delay or refuse approval of a BLA if applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied, require additional testing or information and/or require post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor safety or efficacy of a product.

If regulatory approval of a product is granted, such approval will be granted for one or more particular indications and may entail limitations on the indicated uses for which such product may be marketed. For example, the FDA may approve the BLA with a REMS to ensure the benefits of the product outweigh its risks. A REMS is a safety strategy to manage a known or potential serious risk associated with a product and to enable patients to have continued access to such medicines by managing their safe use, and could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as special training or monitoring requirements, restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. The FDA also may condition approval on, among other things, changes to proposed labeling or the development of adequate controls and specifications. Once a BLA is approved, the FDA may withdraw the product approval if compliance with pre- and post-marketing requirements is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the marketplace. The FDA may require one or more Phase 4 post-market studies and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization and may limit further marketing of the product based on the results of these post-marketing studies.

Tableof Contents

Additional Considerations for Gene Therapy Products

In addition to the regulations discussed above, there are a number of additional considerations that apply to clinical trials involving the use of gene therapy. Supervision of human gene transfer trials includes evaluation and assessment by an institutional biosafety committee (“IBC”) a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees research utilizing recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules at that institution. The IBC assesses the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment, and such review may result in some delay before initiation of a clinical trial. The FDA has issued various guidance documents regarding gene therapies, which outline additional factors that the FDA will consider at each of the above stages of development and relate to, among other things: the proper preclinical assessment of gene therapies; the CMC information that should be included in an IND application; the proper design of tests to measure product efficacy or potency in support of an IND or BLA application; and measures to observe delayed adverse effects in subjects who have been exposed to investigational gene therapies when the risk of such effects is high. For instance, the FDA usually recommends that sponsors observe all surviving subjects who receive treatment using gene therapies that are based on adeno-associated virus vectors in clinical trials for potential gene therapy-related delayed adverse events for a minimum five-year period. FDA does not require the long-term tracking to be complete prior to its review of the BLA.

Expedited Development and Review Programs

The FDA offers a number of expedited development and review programs for qualifying product candidates. The fast track program is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new products that meet certain criteria. Specifically, new products are eligible for fast track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and data demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. Fast track designation applies to the combination of the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a new biological product may request the FDA to designate the biological product as a Fast Track product at any time during the clinical development of the product. The sponsor of a fast track product has opportunities for more frequent interactions with the review team during product development and, once a BLA is submitted, the product may be eligible for priority review. A fast track product may also be eligible for rolling review, where the FDA may consider for review sections of the BLA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the BLA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the BLA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the BLA. We have received fast track designation for both of our product candidates that are currently in Phase 1/2 clinical trials, NGN-401 for the treatment of Rett syndrome and NGN-101 for the treatment of CLN5 Batten disease.

A product may also be eligible for breakthrough therapy designation to expedite its development and review if it is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The designation includes all of the fast track program features, as well as more intensive FDA interaction and guidance beginning as early as Phase 1 and an organizational commitment to expedite the development and review of the product, including involvement of senior managers. We may seek breakthrough therapy designation for one or more of our product candidates, including NGN-401 for the treatment of Rett syndrome and NGN-101 for the treatment of CLN5 Batten disease.

Regenerative medicines, which include AAV gene therapies like the ones we are using in both our NGN-401 clinical trial for the treatment of Rett syndrome and our NGN-101 clinical trial for the treatment of CLN5 Batten disease, are eligible to receive the regenerative medicine advanced therapy (“RMAT”) designation. An RMAT is defined as a cell therapy, therapeutic tissue engineering product, human cell and tissue product, or any combination product using such therapies or products, with limited exceptions. Such a product is eligible for RMAT designation if it is intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates it has the potential to address unmet medical needs for such disease or condition. Advantages of the RMAT designation include early interactions with the FDA to discuss the development plan for the product candidate, including potential surrogate or intermediate endpoints, and eligibility for rolling and priority review. Products granted RMAT designation may also be eligible for accelerated approval on the basis of a surrogate or intermediate endpoint reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit, or reliance upon data obtained from a meaningful number of sites, including through expansion to additional sites. RMAT-designated products that receive accelerated approval may, as appropriate, fulfill their post-approval requirements through the submission of clinical evidence, clinical studies, patient registries, or other sources of real-world evidence (such as electronic health records); through the collection of larger confirmatory data sets; or via post-approval monitoring of all patients treated with such therapy prior to approval of the therapy. While we have not yet sought RMAT designation for any of our products to date, we may request such a designation on one or more products in the future, including NGN-401 for the treatment of Rett syndrome and NGN-101 for the treatment of CLN5 Batten disease.

Tableof Contents

Any marketing application for a biologic submitted to the FDA for approval, including a product with a fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation and/or RMAT designation, may be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite the FDA review and approval process, such as priority review and accelerated approval. A product is eligible for priority review if it has the potential to provide a significant improvement in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a serious disease or condition. For original BLAs, priority review designation means the FDA’s goal is to take action on the marketing application within six months of the 60-day filing date (as compared to ten months under a standard review). We have not sought priority review for any of our product candidates to date, but may do so in the future, including for our product candidates currently in clinical trials: NGN-401 for the treatment of Rett syndrome and NGN-101 for the treatment of CLN5 Batten disease.

Additionally, products intended for use in treating serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions may receive accelerated approval upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of accelerated approval, the FDA will generally require the sponsor to perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical studies with due diligence to verify and describe the anticipated effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. Under the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022 (“FDORA”), the FDA may require, as appropriate, that such studies be underway prior to approval or within a specific time period after the date of approval for a product granted accelerated approval. Under FDORA, the FDA has increased authority for expedited procedures to withdraw approval of a product or indication approved under accelerated approval if the sponsor fails to conduct the required post-marketing studies or if such studies fail to verify the predicted clinical benefit. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product.

Fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, RMAT designation and priority review do not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process. Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity

Under the Orphan Drug Act of 1983, the FDA may grant orphan drug designation to a product candidate intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the U.S., or 200,000 or more individuals in the U.S. for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available in the U.S. a drug or biologic for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales in the U.S. for that product candidate. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting a BLA. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. We have received an orphan drug designation for both of our product candidates that are currently in Phase 1/2 clinical trials, NGN-401 for the treatment of Rett syndrome and NGN-101 for the treatment of CLN5 Batten disease. The orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review or approval process.

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

A designated orphan drug may not receive orphan drug exclusivity if it is approved for a use that is broader than the indication for which it received orphan drug designation. In addition, exclusive marketing rights in the U.S. may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition.

Tableof Contents

There is some uncertainty with respect to the FDA’s interpretation of the scope of orphan drug exclusivity. Historically, exclusivity was specific to the orphan indication for which the drug was approved. As a result, the scope of exclusivity was interpreted as preventing approval of a competing product. However, in 2021, the federal court in Catalyst Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Becerra suggested that orphan drug exclusivity covers the full scope of the orphan-designated “disease or condition” regardless of whether a drug obtained approval for a narrower use.

Post-Approval Requirements

Any products manufactured or distributed by us pursuant to FDA-approved applications are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to record-keeping, reporting of adverse experiences, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, and advertising and promotion of the product. As part of the manufacturing process, the manufacturer is required to perform certain tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. After a BLA is approved for a biological product, the product also may be subject to official lot release. If the product is subject to official release by the FDA, the manufacturer submits samples of each lot of product to the FDA together with a release protocol showing a summary of the history of manufacture of the lot and the results of all of the manufacturer’s tests performed on the lot. The FDA also may perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of some products before releasing the lots for distribution by the manufacturer. In addition, the FDA conducts laboratory research related to the regulatory standards on the safety, purity, and potency or effectiveness of biologics. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing user fee requirements, under which the FDA assesses an annual program fee for each product identified in an approved BLA. Biologic manufacturers like us and their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMPs, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon such companies and their third-party manufacturers. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and, depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMPs and impose reporting requirements upon such companies and any third-party manufacturers that they may decide to use. Accordingly, we must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMPs and other aspects of regulatory compliance.

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

•restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of a product, complete withdrawal of the product from the market or product recalls;

•fines, warning letters or holds on post-approval clinical studies;

•refusal of the FDA to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications, or suspension or revocation of existing product approvals;

•product seizure or detention, or refusal of the FDA to permit the import or export of products;

•consent decrees, corporate integrity agreements, debarment or exclusion from federal healthcare programs;

•mandated modification of promotional materials and labeling and the issuance of corrective information;

•the issuance of safety alerts, Dear Healthcare Provider letters, press releases and other communications containing warnings or other safety information about the product; or

•injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.

Tableof Contents

The FDA closely regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of biologics. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy, purity and potency that are approved by the FDA and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in, among other things, adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties. Physicians may prescribe legally available products for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested by drug manufacturers and approved by the FDA. Such off-label uses are common across medical specialties. Physicians may believe that such off-label uses are the best treatment for many patients in varied circumstances. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. The FDA does, however, restrict manufacturer’s communications on the subject of off-label use of their products.

In addition, the distribution of prescription drug products, including most biological products that require a prescription, are subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, or the PDMA, which regulates the distribution of drug samples at the federal level, and sets minimum standards for the registration and regulation of drug distributors by the states. Both the PDMA and state laws limit the distribution of prescription drug product samples and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution.

Biosimilars and Reference Product Exclusivity

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (collectively, the “ACA”), includes a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”), which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are highly similar, or “biosimilar,” to or interchangeable with an FDA-approved reference biological product. The FDA has issued several guidance documents outlining an approach to review and approval of biosimilars.

Biosimilarity, which requires that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity, and efficacy or potency, is generally shown through analytical studies, animal studies, and a clinical study or studies. Interchangeability requires that a product is biosimilar to the reference product and the product must demonstrate that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient and, for products that are administered multiple times to an individual, the biologic and the reference biologic may be alternated or switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic. A product shown to be biosimilar or interchangeable with an FDA-approved reference biological product may rely in part on the FDA’s previous determination of safety and effectiveness for the reference product for approval, which can potentially reduce the cost and time required to obtain approval to market the product. Complexities associated with the larger, and often more complex, structures of biological products, as well as the processes by which such products are manufactured, pose significant hurdles to implementation of the abbreviated approval pathway that are still being worked out by the FDA. In September 2021, the FDA issued two guidance documents intended to inform prospective applicants and facilitate the development of proposed biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars, as well as to describe the FDA’s interpretation of certain statutory requirements added by the BPCIA.

Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first licensed by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full BLA for the competing product containing that applicant’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and efficacy or potency of its product. The BPCIA also created certain exclusivity periods for biosimilars approved as interchangeable products. FDA-approved interchangeable biosimilars may be substituted for the reference product without the intervention of the prescribing health care provider, subject to state laws, which differ by state.

A reference biologic is granted 12 years of exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the reference product. The first biologic product submitted under the abbreviated approval pathway that is determined to be interchangeable with the reference product has exclusivity against other biologics submitted under the abbreviated approval pathway for the lesser of (i) one year after the first commercial marketing, (ii) 18 months after approval if there is no legal challenge, (iii) 18 months after the resolution in the applicant’s favor of a lawsuit challenging the biologics’ patents if an application has been submitted, or (iv) 42 months after the application has been approved if a lawsuit is ongoing within the 42-month period.

Tableof Contents

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

The BPCIA is complex and continues to be interpreted and implemented by the FDA. In July 2018, the FDA announced an action plan to encourage the development and efficient review of biosimilars, including the establishment of a new office within the agency that will focus on therapeutic biologics and biosimilars. On December 20, 2020, Congress amended the PHSA as part of the COVID-19 relief bill to further simplify the biosimilar review process by making it optional to show that conditions of use proposed in labeling have been previously approved for the reference product, which used to be a requirement of the application. In addition, government proposals have sought to reduce the 12-year reference product exclusivity period. Other aspects of the BPCIA, some of which may impact the BPCIA exclusivity provisions, have also been the subject of recent litigation. As a result, the ultimate impact, implementation, and impact of the BPCIA is subject to significant uncertainty.

As discussed below, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“IRA”) is a significant new law that intends to foster generic and biosimilar competition and to lower drug and biologic costs.

Patent Term Extension

In the U.S., after a BLA is approved, owners of relevant drug patents may apply for up to a five-year patent extension, which permits patent term restoration as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory process. The allowable patent term extension is typically calculated as one-half the time between, the latter of the effective date of an IND and issue date of the patent for which extension is sought, and the submission date of a BLA, plus the time between BLA submission date and the BLA approval date up to a maximum of five years. The time can be shortened if the FDA determines that the applicant did not pursue licensure with due diligence. The total patent term after the extension may not exceed 14 years from the date of product licensure. Only one patent applicable to a licensed biological product is eligible for extension and only those claims covering the product, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent in question. However, Neurogene may not be granted an extension because of, for example, failing to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. Some, but not all, foreign jurisdictions possess patent term extension or other additional patent exclusivity mechanisms that may be more or less stringent and comprehensive than those of the U.S.

Rare Pediatric Disease Designation and Priority Review Vouchers

Under the FDCA, as amended, the FDA incentivizes the development of drugs and biologics intended to treat conditions that meet the definition of a “rare pediatric disease,” defined to mean a serious or life-threatening disease in which the serious or life-threatening manifestations primarily affect individuals aged from birth to 18 years and the disease affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the U.S. or affects more than 200,000 in the U.S. and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making in the U.S. a drug for such disease or condition will be received from sales in the U.S. of such drug. Both Rett syndrome and CLN5 Batten disease qualify as rare pediatric diseases, and we have received rare pediatric disease designation for both NGN-401 for the treatment of Rett syndrome and NGN-101 for the treatment of CLN5 Batten disease, and we may request such designation for future product candidates if the diseases they are intended to treat meet the definition of a rare pediatric disease. The sponsor of a product candidate for a rare pediatric disease may be eligible for a voucher that can be used to obtain a priority review for a subsequent human drug or biologic application after the date of approval of the rare pediatric disease drug product, referred to as a priority review voucher (a “PRV”). A sponsor may request rare pediatric disease designation from the FDA prior to the submission of its BLA. A rare pediatric disease designation does not guarantee that a sponsor will receive a PRV upon approval of its BLA. Moreover, a sponsor who chooses not to submit a rare pediatric disease designation request may nonetheless receive a PRV upon approval of their marketing application if they request such a voucher in their original marketing application and meet all of the eligibility criteria. If a PRV is received, it may be sold or transferred an unlimited number of times. Congress has extended the PRV program through September 30, 2024, with the potential for PRVs to be granted through September 30, 2026. If Congress does not further extend this program, we may not meet the deadline for PRVs to be granted for our current programs given the expected timeline of development.

Tableof Contents

Other Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements

Pharmaceutical companies are subject to additional healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and by authorities in the states and foreign jurisdictions in which they conduct their business. Such laws include, without limitation: the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”); the federal False Claims Act (“FCA”); the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”); and similar foreign, federal and state fraud, abuse and transparency laws.

The AKS prohibits, among other things, persons and entities from knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or paying remuneration, to induce, or in return for, either the referral of an individual, or the purchase, lease, order, arrangement, or recommendation of an item or service for which payment may be made under any federal healthcare program. The term remuneration has been interpreted broadly to include anything of value. The AKS has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand, and prescribers and purchasers on the other. The government often takes the position that to violate the AKS, only one purpose of the remuneration need be to induce referrals, even if there are other legitimate purposes for the remuneration. There are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from AKS prosecution, but they are drawn narrowly and practices that involve remuneration, such as consulting agreements, that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchasing or recommending may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. Our practices may not in all cases meet all of the criteria for protection under a statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor. Failure to meet all of the requirements of a particular applicable statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor does not make the conduct per se illegal under the AKS. Instead, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a cumulative review of all of its facts and circumstances. Violations are subject to civil and criminal fines and penalties for each violation, plus up to three times the remuneration involved, imprisonment, and exclusion from government healthcare programs. In addition, the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the AKS constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the FCA or federal civil monetary penalties.

Civil and criminal false claims laws, including the FCA, and civil monetary penalty laws, which impose criminal and civil penalties and can be enforced through civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, prohibit, among other things, individuals or entities from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, claims for payment of federal government funds, including in federal healthcare programs, that are false or fraudulent; knowingly making, using or causing to be made or used, a false statement of record material to a false or fraudulent claim or obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the federal government or knowingly concealing or knowingly and improperly avoiding or decreasing an obligation to pay money to the federal government. Pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been prosecuted under these laws for engaging in a variety of different types of conduct that “caused” the submission of false claims to federal healthcare programs. Under the AKS, for example, a claim resulting from a violation of the AKS is deemed to be a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the FCA. The FCA imposes mandatory treble damages and per-violation civil penalties up to approximately $27,000. The FCA also permits a private individual acting as a “whistleblower” to bring actions on behalf of the federal government alleging violations of the FCA and to share in any monetary recovery.

HIPAA created additional federal criminal statutes that prohibit, among other things, executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by any trick or device a material fact or making any materially false statements or representations relating to healthcare matters.

The FDCA addresses, among other things, the design, production, labeling, promotion, manufacturing, and testing of drugs, biologics and medical devices, and prohibits such acts as the introduction into interstate commerce of adulterated or misbranded drugs or devices. The PHSA also prohibits the introduction into interstate commerce of unlicensed or mislabeled biological products.

The U.S. federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act (the “Physician Payments Sunshine Act”) requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, with specific exceptions, to annually report to the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services (“CMS”) information related to payments or other transfers of value to various healthcare professionals including physicians, certain other licensed health care practitioners, and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Beginning on January 1, 2023, California Assembly Bill 1278 requires California physicians and surgeons to notify patients of the Open Payments database established under the Physician Payments Sunshine Act.

Tableof Contents

We are also subject to federal price reporting laws and federal consumer protection and unfair competition laws. Federal price reporting laws require manufacturers to calculate and report complex pricing metrics to government programs, where such reported prices may be used in the calculation of reimbursement and/ or discounts on approved products. Federal consumer protection and unfair competition laws broadly regulate marketplace activities and activities that potentially harm consumers.

Further, we are subject to additional similar U.S. state and foreign law equivalents of each of the above federal laws, which, in some cases, differ from each other in significant ways, and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply, we may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from government-funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid or similar programs in other countries or jurisdictions, integrity oversight and reporting obligations to resolve allegations of non-compliance, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.

Data Privacy and Security

Numerous state, federal, and foreign laws govern the collection, dissemination, use, access to, confidentiality, and security of personal information, including health-related information. In the U.S., numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws and regulations that govern the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of health-related and other personal information apply to our operations or the operations of our partners. For example, HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (“HITECH”), and their respective implementing regulations imposes privacy, security, and breach notification obligations on certain health care providers, health plans, and health care clearinghouses, known as covered entities, as well as their business associates and subcontractors that perform services on their behalf that involve using, disclosing, creating, receiving, maintaining, or transmitting individually identifiable health information for or on behalf of such covered entities. The requirements imposed by HIPAA and HITECH on covered entities and business associates include entering into agreements that require business associates protect protected health information (“PHI”) provided by the covered entity against improper use or disclosure, among other things; following certain standards for the privacy of PHI, which limit the disclosure of a patient’s past, present or future physical or mental health or condition or information about a patient’s receipt of health care if the information identifies, or could reasonably be used to identify, the individual; ensuring the confidentiality, integrity and availability of all PHI created, received, maintained or transmitted in electronic form, in particular in order to identify and protect against reasonably anticipated threats or impermissible uses or disclosures to the security and integrity of such PHI; and reporting of such breaches of PHI to individuals, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) and, in certain circumstances, the media.

Significant civil and criminal fines and other penalties may be imposed for violating HIPAA. A covered entity or business associate is also liable for civil money penalties for a violation that is based on an act or omission of any of its agents, which may include a downstream business associate, as determined according to the federal common law of agency. HITECH also increased the civil and criminal penalties applicable to covered entities and business associates and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce HIPAA and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. To the extent that we submit electronic healthcare claims and payment transactions that do not comply with the electronic data transmission standards established under HIPAA and HITECH, payments to us may be delayed or denied.

Even when HIPAA does not apply, according to the FTC, violating consumers’ privacy rights or failing to take appropriate steps to keep consumers’ personal information secure may constitute unfair acts or practices in or affecting commerce in violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Many state consumer protection laws similarly provide state-law causes of action for allegedly unfair or deceptive acts or practices, among other things, including causes of action for alleged data privacy violations.

Tableof Contents

In addition, certain state laws, such as the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”), as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (“CPRA”) and California’s Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, govern the privacy and security of personal information, including health-related information in certain circumstances, some of which are more stringent than HIPAA and many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. The CCPA/CPRA applies to personal data of consumers, business representatives, and employees, and imposes obligations on certain businesses that do business in California, including to provide specific disclosures in privacy notices and certain rights to California residents in relation to their personal information. Failure to comply with these laws, where applicable, can result in the imposition of significant civil and/or criminal penalties and, in some cases, private litigation, as well as injunctive restrictions on data processing. Privacy and security laws, regulations, and other obligations are constantly evolving, may conflict with each other, which complicates compliance efforts, and can result in investigations, proceedings, or actions that lead to significant civil and/or criminal penalties and restrictions on data processing. Additionally, our use of artificial intelligence and machine learning may be subject to laws and evolving regulations regarding the use of artificial intelligence/machine learning, controlling for data bias, and anti-discrimination.

Coverage and Reimbursement

In the U.S. and markets in other countries, patients generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their treatment. Adequate coverage and reimbursement from governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and commercial payors is critical to new product acceptance. Our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow it to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize a sufficient return on its investment. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels.

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any pharmaceutical or biological product for which we may obtain regulatory approval. Sales of any product, if approved, depend, in part, on the extent to which such product will be covered by third-party payors, such as federal, state, and foreign government healthcare programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations, and the level of reimbursement, if any, for such product by third-party payors. Decisions regarding whether to cover any of its product candidates, if approved, the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided are made on a plan-by-plan basis. Further, no uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement exists in the U.S., and coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates, but also have their own methods and approval process apart from Medicare determinations. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require it to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of its product candidates to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance. Factors payors consider in determining reimbursement are based on whether the product is:

•a covered benefit under its health plan;

•safe, effective and medically necessary;

•appropriate for the specific patient;

•cost-effective; and

•neither experimental nor investigational.

Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged for medical products and services, examining the medical necessity and reviewing the cost effectiveness of pharmaceutical or biological products, medical devices and medical services, in addition to questioning safety and efficacy. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit sales of any product that receives approval. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for any product or a decision by a third-party not to cover a product could reduce physician usage and patient demand for the product.

Tableof Contents

For products administered under the supervision of a physician, obtaining coverage and adequate reimbursement may be particularly difficult because of the higher prices often associated with such drugs. Additionally, separate reimbursement for the product itself or the treatment or procedure in which the product is used may not be available, which may impact physician utilization. In addition, companion diagnostic tests require coverage and reimbursement separate and apart from the coverage and reimbursement for their companion pharmaceutical or biological products. Similar challenges to obtaining coverage and reimbursement, applicable to pharmaceutical or biological products, will apply to companion diagnostics.

In addition, net prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the U.S. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. We cannot be sure that reimbursement will be available for any product candidate that we may commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, the level of reimbursement. In addition, many pharmaceutical manufacturers must calculate and report certain price reporting metrics to the government, such as average sales price, or ASP, and best price. Penalties may apply in some cases when such metrics are not submitted accurately and timely. Further, these prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs.

Finally, in some foreign countries, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing drug pricing vary widely from country to country. For example, the European Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval, some of these countries may require the completion of clinical trials that compare the cost effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies. A member state may approve a specific price for the medicinal product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our product candidates. Historically, products launched in the European Union do not follow price structures of the U.S. and generally prices tend to be significantly lower.

Healthcare Reform

The United States and some foreign jurisdictions are considering or have enacted a number of reform proposals to change the healthcare system. There is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality or expanding access. In the U.S., the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by federal and state legislative initiatives, including those designed to limit the pricing, coverage, and reimbursement of pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical products, especially under government-funded health care programs, and increased governmental control of drug pricing.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (“ACA”), which was enacted in 2010, substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers in the U.S., and significantly affected the pharmaceutical industry. The ACA contains a number of provisions of particular import to the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, including, but not limited to, those governing enrollment in federal healthcare programs. Since its enactment, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and Neurogene expects there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. For example, the Budget Control Act of 2011 and subsequent legislation, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress that include aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which remain in effect through 2032. Due to the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, estimated budget deficit increases resulting from the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, and subsequent legislation, Medicare payments to providers will be further reduced starting in 2025 absent further legislation. The U.S. American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

In addition, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, among other things, amended the Medicare Act (as amended by the ACA) to increase the point-of-sale discounts that manufacturers must agree to offer under the Medicare Part D coverage discount program to 70% off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs being covered under Medicare Part D.

Tableof Contents

Moreover, there has recently been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state measures designed to, among other things, reduce the cost of prescription drugs, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. For example, in May 2019, CMS adopted a final rule allowing Medicare Advantage Plans the option to use step therapy for Part B drugs, permitting Medicare Part D plans to apply certain utilization controls to new starts of five of the six protected class drugs, and requiring the Explanation of Benefits for Part D beneficiaries to disclose drug price increases and lower cost therapeutic alternatives.

In addition, the U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have continued implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on coverage and reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. The IRA includes several provisions that may impact our business to varying degrees, including provisions that reduce the out-of-pocket spending cap for Medicare Part D beneficiaries from $7,050 to $2,000 starting in 2025, thereby effectively eliminating the coverage gap; impose new manufacturer financial liability on certain drugs under Medicare Part D, allow the U.S. government to negotiate Medicare Part B and Part D price caps for certain high-cost drugs and biologics without generic or biosimilar competition; require companies to pay rebates to Medicare for certain drug prices that increase faster than inflation; and delay until January 1, 2032 the implementation of the HHS rebate rule that would have limited the fees that pharmacy benefit managers can charge. Further, under the IRA, orphan drugs are exempted from the Medicare drug price negotiation program, but only if they have one rare disease designation and for which the only approved indication is for that disease or condition. If a product receives multiple rare disease designations or has multiple approved indications, it may not qualify for the orphan drug exemption. The effects of the IRA on its business and the healthcare industry in general is not yet known.

President Biden has also issued multiple executive orders that have sought to reduce prescription drug costs. In February 2023, HHS also issued a proposal in response to an October 2022 executive order from President Biden that includes a proposed prescription drug pricing model that will test whether targeted Medicare payment adjustments will sufficiently incentivize manufacturers to complete confirmatory trials for drugs approved through FDA’s accelerated approval pathway. Although a number of these and other proposed measures may require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, and the Biden administration may reverse or otherwise change these measures, both the Biden administration and Congress have indicated that they will continue to seek new legislative measures to control drug costs.

Notwithstanding the IRA and President Biden’s executive orders, continued legislative and enforcement interest exists in the U.S. with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, we expect regulators to continue pushing for transparency to drug pricing, reducing the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, reviewing the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reforming government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs.

Individual states in the U.S. have also become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain drug access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Legally mandated price controls on payment amounts by third-party payors or other restrictions could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. This could reduce the ultimate demand for its drugs or put pressure on its drug pricing, which could negatively affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Other Government Regulation Outside of the United States

In addition to regulations in the U.S., we are subject to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing, among other things, research and development, clinical trials, testing, manufacturing, safety, efficacy, quality control, labeling, packaging, storage, record keeping, distribution, reporting, export and import, advertising, marketing and other promotional practices involving biological products as well as authorization, approval as well as post-approval monitoring and reporting of its products. Because biologically sourced raw materials are subject to unique contamination risks, their use may be restricted in some countries.

Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign countries prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. Certain countries outside of the U.S. have a similar process that requires the submission of a clinical trial application much like an IND prior to the commencement of human clinical trials.

Tableof Contents

The requirements and process governing the conduct of clinical trials, including requirements to conduct additional clinical trials, product licensing, safety reporting, post-authorization requirements, marketing and promotion, interactions with healthcare professionals, pricing and reimbursement may vary widely from country to country. No action can be taken to market any product in a country until an appropriate approval application has been approved by the regulatory authorities in that country. The current approval process varies from country to country, and the time spent in gaining approval varies from that required for FDA approval. In certain countries, the sales price of a product must also be approved. The pricing review period often begins after market approval is granted. Even if a product is approved by a regulatory authority, satisfactory prices may not be approved for such product, which would make launch of such products commercially unfeasible in such countries.

Regulation in the European Union

European Data Protection Laws

NGNE US Equity

NGNE · 10-K · period ended 2023-12-31

Item 1. Business

NGNE US Equity☆

NGNE · 10-K · period ended 2023-12-31

Item 1. Business

NGNE US Equity