10-K

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

_____________________________________________________

FORM 10-K

_____________________________________________________

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025

For the transition period from _____________ to _____________

Commission file number: 001-40671

_____________________________________________________

NUVALENT, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

_____________________________________________________

One Broadway, 14th FloorCambridge, MA 02142

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (857) 357-7000

_____________________________________________________

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

Title of each class TradingSymbol(s) Name of each exchangeon which registered

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

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

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

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

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

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

Large accelerated filer ☒ Accelerated filer ☐

Non-accelerated filer ☐ Smaller reporting company ☐

Emerging growth company ☐

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

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

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 ☐ No ☒

Based on the closing price of the registrant’s Class A common stock on the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, which was a closing price of $76.30 per share on June 30, 2025, as reported on the Nasdaq Global Select Market, the aggregate market value of its Class A common stock and Class B common stock held by non-affiliates was approximately $3.6 billion.

As of February 19, 2026, the registrant had 73,181,747 shares of Class A common stock, $0.0001 par value per share, outstanding and 5,435,254 shares of Class B common stock, $0.0001 par value per share, outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the registrant’s Proxy Statement for its 2026 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, which the registrant intends to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission not later than 120 days after the registrant’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Table of Contents

Nuvalent, Inc.

Table of Contents

Page

PART I

Item 1. Business 1

Item 1A. Risk Factors 38

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments 91

Item 1C. Cybersecurity 91

Item 2. Properties 92

Item 3. Legal Proceedings 92

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures 92

PART II

Item 6. [Reserved] 94

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk 104

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data 106

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures 124

Item 9B. Other Information 124

Item 9C. Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections 125

PART III

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance 126

Item 11. Executive Compensation 126

Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services 126

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules 127

Exhibit Index 128

Table of Contents

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS AND INDUSTRY DATA

This Annual Report on Form 10-K (Annual Report) of Nuvalent, Inc. contains express or implied forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities Act), and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), that are based on our management’s beliefs and assumptions and on information currently available to our management. These statements relate to future events or our future operational or financial performance, and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report include, among other things, statements about:

•

the initiation, timing, progress, results, and costs of our zidesamtinib (NVL-520), neladalkib (NVL-655), NVL-330 and discovery programs and our current and future preclinical studies and clinical trials, including statements regarding the timing of initiation and completion of studies or trials and related preparatory work, alignment with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding the design of trials, and when the results of the studies or trials will become available;

•

the ability of our preclinical studies and clinical trials to demonstrate safety and efficacy of our product candidates, and other positive results;

•

the beneficial characteristics, and the potential safety, efficacy and therapeutic effects of our product candidates;

•

the timing, scope and likelihood of regulatory filings and approvals, including timing of Investigational New Drug applications (INDs), New Drug Applications (NDAs), and final FDA approval of our current product candidates or any future product candidates;

•

the timing, scope or likelihood of foreign regulatory filings and approvals;

•

our ability to identify research priorities and apply a risk-mitigated strategy to efficiently discover and develop product candidates, including by applying learnings from one program to other programs and from one indication to other indications;

•

our estimates of the number of patients that we will enroll and our ability to initiate, recruit, and enroll patients in and conduct and successfully complete our clinical trials at the pace that we project;

•

our ability to scale-up our manufacturing and processing approaches to appropriately address our anticipated commercial needs, which will require significant resources;

•

our ability to maintain and further develop the specific shipping, storage, handling and administration of zidesamtinib, neladalkib and NVL-330 at clinical sites;

•

our ability to obtain funding for our operations necessary to complete further development and commercialization of our product candidates;

•

our ability to take advantage of accelerated regulatory pathways for our product candidates;

•

our ability to obtain and maintain regulatory approval of our product candidates;

•

our ability to commercialize our product candidates, if approved, including the geographic areas of focus and sales strategy;

•

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

•

the implementation of our business model, and strategic plans for our business, product candidates, and technology;

•

the scope of protection we are able to establish and maintain for intellectual property rights covering our product candidates and other product candidates we may develop, including the extensions of existing patent terms where available, the validity of intellectual property rights held by third parties, and our ability not to infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate any third-party intellectual property rights;

•

estimates of our future expenses, revenues, capital requirements, and our needs for additional funding;

•

the period over which we estimate our existing cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities will be sufficient to fund our future operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements;

•

future agreements with third parties in connection with the development and commercialization of our product candidates;

•

the size and growth potential of the markets for our product candidates, and our ability to serve those markets;

•

our financial performance;

•

the rate and degree of market acceptance of our product candidates, if approved;

Table of Contents

•

regulatory developments in the United States (the U.S.) and foreign countries;

•

our ability to contract with third-party suppliers and manufacturers and their ability to perform adequately;

•

our ability to produce our product candidates with advantages in turnaround times or manufacturing cost;

•

our competitive position and the success of competing therapies that are or may become available;

•

our need for and ability to attract, retain and hire key scientific, management, sales and marketing and other personnel;

•

the impact of laws and regulations;

•

developments relating to our competitors and our industry;

•

the effect of public health emergencies, natural disasters or geopolitical events, including actual or threatened tariffs or other changes in trade policy, civil or political unrest or military conflicts, on any of the foregoing or other aspects of our business operations, including but not limited to our preclinical studies and clinical trials; and

•

other risks and uncertainties, including those listed under the section titled “Risk Factors.”

In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may,” “might,” “will,” “could,” “would,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “believe,” “estimate,” “seek,” “predict,” “future,” “project,” “potential,” “continue,” “target,” “aim” or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology. These statements are only predictions. You should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements because they involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors, which are, in some cases, beyond our control and which could materially affect results. Factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from current expectations include, among other things, those listed under the sections titled “Risk Factors” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” and elsewhere in this Annual Report. If one or more of these risks or uncertainties were to occur, or if our underlying assumptions prove to be incorrect, actual events or results may vary significantly from those implied or projected by the forward-looking statements. No forward-looking statement is a guarantee of future performance. You should read this Annual Report and the documents that we reference in this Annual Report and have filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) completely and with the understanding that our actual future results may be materially different from any future results expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements.

The forward-looking statements in this Annual Report represent our views as of the date of this Annual Report. We do not undertake any obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statement except to the extent required by applicable law. You should therefore not rely on these forward-looking statements as representing our views as of any date subsequent to the date of this Annual Report.

This Annual Report also contains estimates, projections and other information concerning our industry, our business and the markets for our product candidates. Information that is based on estimates, forecasts, projections, market research or similar methodologies is inherently subject to uncertainties and actual events or circumstances may differ materially from events and circumstances that are assumed in this information. Unless otherwise expressly stated, we obtained this industry, business, market and other data from our own internal estimates and research as well as from reports, research surveys, studies, and similar data prepared by market research firms and other third parties, industry, medical and general publications, government data and similar sources. All of the market data used in this Annual Report involve a number of assumptions and limitations, and you are cautioned not to give undue weight to such data. Industry publications and third-party research, surveys and studies generally indicate that their information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, although they do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of such information. Our estimates of the potential market opportunities for our product candidates include several key assumptions based on our industry knowledge, industry publications, third-party research and other surveys, which may be based on a small sample size and may fail to accurately reflect market opportunities. While we believe that our internal assumptions are reasonable, no independent source has verified such assumptions.

Except where the context otherwise requires or where otherwise indicated, the terms “Nuvalent,” “we,” “us,” “our,” “our Company,” “the Company,” and “our business” in this Annual Report refer to Nuvalent, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiary. Solely for convenience, the trademarks and trade names in this Annual Report may be referred to without the symbols ® and TM. Nuvalent and associated logos are trademarks of Nuvalent. Other brands, names and trademarks contained in this Annual Report are the property of their respective owners.

iii

Table of Contents

SUMMARY OF RISK FACTORS

Below is a summary of the principal factors that make an investment in our common stock speculative or risky. This summary does not address all of the risks that we face. Additional discussion of the risks summarized in this risk factor summary, and other risks that we face, can be found below under the section titled “Risk Factors” and should be carefully considered, together with other information in this Annual Report and our other filings with the SEC before making investment decisions regarding our common stock.

•

We have a limited operating history, have no products approved for commercial sale and have not generated any revenue, which may make it difficult for investors to evaluate our current business and likelihood of success and viability;

•

We have incurred significant net losses in each period since our inception, and we expect to continue to incur significant net losses for the foreseeable future;

•

Our future prospects are substantially dependent on zidesamtinib (NVL-520), neladalkib (NVL-655) and NVL-330. If we are unable to advance these product candidates through development, obtain regulatory approval and ultimately commercialize such product candidates, or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed. Even if we obtain regulatory approval for such candidates, there is no assurance that our commercialization efforts will be successful or that we will be able to generate revenues or profits at the levels or on the timing we expect, if at all;

•

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

•

Our discovery and development activities are focused on the development of targeted therapeutics for patients with cancer-associated genomic alterations, which is a rapidly evolving area of science, and the approach we are taking to discover and develop drugs may never lead to approved or marketable products;

•

The outcome of preclinical testing and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later-stage clinical trials, and the results of our clinical trials may not satisfy the requirements of the FDA, European Medicines Agency (EMA) or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities and we may not be able to commercialize our product candidates;

•

In addition to zidesamtinib, neladalkib and NVL-330, our prospects depend in part upon discovering, developing and commercializing additional product candidates from our discovery programs, which may fail in development or suffer delays that adversely affect their commercial viability;

•

Our product candidates may cause significant adverse events, toxicities or other undesirable adverse events when used alone or in combination with other approved products or investigational new drugs that may result in a safety profile that could prevent regulatory approval, prevent market acceptance, limit their commercial potential or result in significant negative consequences;

•

Interim, preliminary and topline data from our preclinical studies and clinical trials that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more data become available and are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data;

•

If we experience delays or difficulties in the enrollment or maintenance of patients in clinical trials, our regulatory submissions or receipt of necessary marketing approvals could be delayed or prevented;

•

We have never commercialized a product candidate as a company before and currently lack substantially all of the necessary expertise, personnel and resources to successfully commercialize any products on our own or together with suitable collaborators;

•

Even if one of our product candidates receives marketing approval, we or others may later discover that the product is less effective or tolerable than previously believed or causes undesirable side effects that were not previously identified, which could compromise our ability, or that of our collaborators, to market the product;

•

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

•

The manufacture of drugs is complex, and our third-party manufacturers may encounter difficulties in production. If any of our third-party manufacturers encounter such difficulties, our ability to provide adequate supply of our product candidates for clinical trials or our products for patients, if approved, could be delayed or prevented;

•

The market opportunities for any product candidates we develop, if approved, may be limited to certain smaller patient subsets and may be smaller than we estimate them to be;

•

We may be unable to obtain U.S. or foreign regulatory approval and, as a result, may be unable to commercialize our product candidates;

•

Even if our product candidates receive regulatory approval, they will be subject to significant post-marketing regulatory requirements and oversight;

Table of Contents

•

Where appropriate, we plan to pursue approval from the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities through the use of accelerated registration pathways. If we are unable to obtain such approval, we may be required to conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials beyond those that we contemplate, which could increase the expense of obtaining, and delay the receipt of, necessary marketing approvals. Even if we receive accelerated approval from the FDA, EMA or comparable regulatory authorities, if our confirmatory trials do not verify clinical benefit, or if we do not comply with rigorous post-marketing requirements, the FDA, EMA or such other regulatory authorities may seek to withdraw accelerated approval;

•

If our product candidates are licensed for marketing and receive federal healthcare reimbursement, any relationships we may have with healthcare providers will be subject to applicable healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations, which could expose us to criminal and civil penalties and exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs;

•

If we are unable to establish adequate sales, marketing and distribution capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to sell, market or distribute our product candidates, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates that obtain regulatory approval;

•

If we are unable to obtain, maintain and enforce patent protection for our technology and product candidates, or if the scope of the patent protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize technology and products similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully develop and commercialize our technology and product candidates may be adversely affected;

•

We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patent or other intellectual property rights, which could be expensive, time-consuming and unsuccessful;

•

Third parties may allege that we are infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating their intellectual property rights, the outcome of which would be uncertain and could have a material adverse effect on our business;

•

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets and other proprietary information, our business and competitive position would be adversely affected;

•

If our trademarks and trade names are not adequately protected, we may not be able to build name recognition in our markets of interest and our business may be adversely affected;

•

We rely on third parties to conduct our preclinical studies and clinical trials, and those third parties may not perform satisfactorily, including failing to meet deadlines for the completion of such trials, research and studies;

•

If we decide to establish collaborations, but are not able to establish those collaborations on commercially reasonable terms, we may have to alter our development and commercialization plans;

•

Our operating results may fluctuate significantly, which makes our future operating results difficult to predict and could cause our operating results to fall below expectations or our guidance;

•

Our principal stockholders own a significant percentage of our stock and can exert significant control over matters subject to stockholder approval. Two of our directors are affiliated with one of our principal stockholders; and

•

We do not intend to pay dividends on our common stock so any returns will be limited to the value of our stock.

Table of Contents

PART I

Item 1. Business

Overview

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on creating precisely targeted therapies for patients with cancer. We leverage our team’s deep expertise in chemistry and structure-based drug design to develop innovative small molecules that are designed with the aim to overcome the limitations of existing therapies for clinically proven kinase targets.

Limitations faced by currently available kinase inhibitors can include (i) kinase resistance, or the emergence of new mutations in the kinase target that can enable resistance to existing therapies, (ii) kinase selectivity, or the potential for existing therapies to inhibit other structurally similar kinase targets and lead to off-target adverse events, and (iii) limited brain penetrance, or the ability for the therapy to treat disease that has spread or metastasized to the brain. By prioritizing target selectivity, we believe our drug candidates have the potential to overcome resistance, avoid dose-limiting off-target adverse events, address brain metastases, and drive more durable responses. This may result in the potential to drive deeper, more durable responses with minimal adverse events, and we believe these potential benefits may support opportunities for clinical utility earlier in the treatment paradigm.

Zidesamtinib (NVL-520)

Our first lead product candidate, zidesamtinib (NVL-520), is being developed for patients with ROS proto-oncogene 1 (ROS1)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Zidesamtinib is a novel ROS1-selective inhibitor designed with the aim to address the clinical challenges of emergent treatment resistance, central nervous system (CNS)-related adverse events, and brain metastases that may limit the use of currently available ROS1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Zidesamtinib has received FDA Breakthrough Therapy designation for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic (advanced) ROS1-positive NSCLC who have previously been treated with two or more prior ROS1 TKIs, and orphan drug designation for ROS1-positive NSCLC.

Our ARROS-1 clinical trial is a first-in-human global Phase 1/2, multicenter, open-label, dose-escalation and expansion study evaluating zidesamtinib as an oral monotherapy in patients with advanced ROS1-positive NSCLC and other solid tumors. Dosing was initiated in the Phase 1 portion of the ARROS-1 clinical trial in January 2022. From January 2022 to August 2023, the Phase 1 portion of the ARROS-1 trial enrolled 104 patients (99 NSCLC, 5 other solid tumors).

In September 2023, we announced the initiation of the Phase 2 portion of the ARROS-1 clinical trial, following alignment with the FDA on a recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) of 100 mg once daily (QD). The Phase 2 portion of the ARROS-1 clinical trial is designed to evaluate the safety and activity of zidesamtinib in patients with advanced ROS1-positive NSCLC and other solid tumors, examining several specific cohorts of patients based on the prior anti-cancer therapies that such patients have received. The Phase 2 cohorts have been designed to support potential registration in TKI-naïve and/or TKI pre-treated ROS1-positive NSCLC patients.

Between September 2023 and June 16, 2025, 435 patients were enrolled in the Phase 2 portion of the ARROS-1 clinical trial. In June 2025, we announced positive pivotal data for zidesamtinib in TKI pre-treated patients with advanced ROS1-positive NSCLC from the global ARROS-1 Phase 1/2 clinical trial, and in September 2025, we presented the pivotal dataset at the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer 2025 World Conference on Lung Cancer. The primary efficacy analysis population for this pivotal dataset consisted of 117 TKI pre-treated patients with advanced ROS1-positive NSCLC with measurable disease who received zidesamtinib at the RP2D by May 31, 2024, with duration of response (DOR) follow-up of at least 6 months available for nearly all responders.

In June 2025, we also shared preliminary data from the Phase 2 TKI-naïve cohort in the ARROS-1 clinical trial, in which enrollment is ongoing. Encouraging preliminary data were available for 35 TKI-naïve patients with advanced ROS1-positive NSCLC treated with zidesamtinib at RP2D as of August 31, 2024. As of June 16, 2025, a total of 104 patients had been enrolled in the ongoing TKI-naïve cohort of the ARROS-1 trial.

In November 2025, the FDA accepted for filing our NDA for zidesamtinib for the treatment of adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic ROS1-positive NSCLC who received at least 1 prior ROS1 TKI. The application has been assigned a Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) target action date of September 18, 2026. Additionally, we plan to submit data from the ongoing TKI-naïve cohort in the Phase 2 portion of the ARROS-1 clinical trial to the FDA to support a potential label expansion of zidesamtinib in TKI-naïve patients with advanced ROS1-positive NSCLC in the second half of 2026.

Neladalkib (NVL-655)

Our second lead product candidate, neladalkib (NVL-655), is being developed for patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive NSCLC. Neladalkib is a brain-penetrant ALK-selective inhibitor designed with the aim to address the clinical challenges of emergent treatment resistance, CNS-related adverse events, and brain metastases that may limit the use of first-generation (1G; crizotinib), second-generation (2G; ceritinib, alectinib, or brigatinib), and third-generation (3G; lorlatinib) ALK inhibitors. Neladalkib has received FDA Breakthrough Therapy designation for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic ALK-positive NSCLC who have been previously treated with two or more ALK TKIs, and orphan drug designation for ALK-positive NSCLC.

Table of Contents

Our ALKOVE-1 clinical trial is a first-in-human global Phase 1/2, multicenter, open-label, dose-escalation and expansion study evaluating neladalkib as an oral monotherapy in patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC and other solid tumors. Dosing was initiated in the Phase 1 portion of the ALKOVE-1 clinical trial in June 2022. From June 2022 to February 2024, the Phase 1 portion of the ALKOVE-1 clinical trial enrolled 133 patients (131 NSCLC, 2 other solid tumors).

In February 2024, we announced the initiation of the Phase 2 portion of the ALKOVE-1 clinical trial, following alignment with the FDA on a RP2D of 150 mg QD. The Phase 2 portion of the ALKOVE-1 clinical trial is designed to evaluate the safety and activity of neladalkib in several expansion cohorts of patients defined based on the number and type of prior anti-cancer therapies they have received. The Phase 2 cohorts are designed with registrational intent for TKI pre-treated patients with ALK-positive NSCLC and to enable preliminary evaluation for patients with ALK-positive NSCLC who are TKI-naïve.

In July 2025, we announced the initiation of the ALKAZAR Phase 3 clinical trial with registrational intent for TKI-naïve patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC. The ALKAZAR clinical trial is a global, randomized, controlled trial designed to evaluate neladalkib versus the current standard of care. Patients are randomized 1:1 to receive neladalkib monotherapy or ALECENSA(alectinib) monotherapy, reflecting input from collaborating physician-scientists and alignment with global regulatory agencies. The ALKAZAR clinical trial is designed to enroll approximately 450 patients with TKI-naïve ALK-positive NSCLC. The primary endpoint is progression free survival (PFS) based on Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR). Secondary endpoints include overall survival, PFS based on investigator’s assessment, time to intracranial response, and BICR assessment of intracranial objective response rate (IC-ORR), intracranial duration of response (IC-DOR), objective response rate (ORR), DOR, time to intracranial progression, and safety.

At the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress (ESMO) in October 2025, we presented preliminary data for neladalkib in patients with advanced ALK-positive solid tumors outside of NSCLC from the ongoing ALKOVE-1 clinical trial. Neladalkib demonstrated encouraging preliminary activity across a diverse set of ALK TKI-naïve and previously treated advanced ALK-positive solid tumors, and was considered generally safe and well-tolerated with a preliminary overall safety profile consistent with its ALK-selective, tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK)-sparing design, and with previously reported data.

In November 2025, we announced positive topline data for neladalkib in TKI pre-treated patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC from the global ALKOVE-1 Phase 1/2 clinical trial. In this topline dataset, data were pooled across Phase 1 and 2 and reported for the primary endpoint of objective response rate (ORR, RECIST 1.1) by BICR. Key secondary endpoints include DOR, IC-ORR, and safety.

As of the data cut-off date of August 29, 2025, 781 patients with ALK-positive solid tumors had received neladalkib at any starting dose across the Phase 1 and Phase 2 portions of the ALKOVE-1 clinical trial. Of these, 656 patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC were treated with neladalkib at the RP2D.

The primary analysis population consisted of 253 TKI pre-treated patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC with measurable disease by BICR who received neladalkib at the RP2D by September 30, 2024, with DOR follow-up of at least 6 months available for nearly all responders.

The primary analysis population was distinct from the ALK TKI pre-treated populations that have been reported for the currently available ALK TKIs:

•

Patients received a median of 3 prior lines of therapy (range, 1 – 11) and 51% had received prior chemotherapy.

•

78% of patients had received 2 or more prior ALK TKIs ± prior chemotherapy, of which 91% had received prior lorlatinib. No approved therapies have demonstrated activity after lorlatinib.

•

19% of patients had a secondary ALK G1202R resistance mutation, and 17% had a compound ALK resistance mutation, which are key drivers of disease progression.

•

40% of patients had active CNS disease by BICR at baseline.

Of the overall TKI pre-treated population, 25% (63/253) of patients were lorlatinib-naïve. Within this subpopulation:

•

25% received prior chemotherapy.

•

100% had received ≥ 1 prior 2G ALK TKI ± prior chemotherapy, of which 70% received prior alectinib only. No patients received crizotinib as their only ALK TKI.

•

19% of patients had a secondary ALK G1202R mutation.

•

35% had active CNS disease by BICR at baseline.

Activity was observed across subsets of TKI pre-treated patients, and DOR was assessed as the probability of patients remaining in response for at least 6, 12, and 18 months by Kaplan-Meier estimate (Table 1).

Table of Contents

Table 1. Any prior ALK TKI± chemotherapya TKI Pre-treated,Lorlatinib-naïveb

Measurable CNS lesions

a Median DOR (mDOR) not reached with median follow-up of 11.3 months.

b mDOR not reached.

c Includes 2 unconfirmed partial responses (uPRs).

f Estimated for responders by Kaplan-Meier analysis.

i Includes 1 uPR.

l Includes 2 IC-uPRs.

In November 2025, we also shared preliminary data from the Phase 2 exploratory cohort for TKI-naïve patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC from the ALKOVE-1 study. Encouraging preliminary data were available for 44 TKI-naïve patients with advanced

Table of Contents

ALK-positive NSCLC and measurable disease by BICR. These patients were treated with neladalkib at RP2D in an exploratory cohort of ALKOVE-1, with data cut-off of August 29, 2025. Patients may have received up to one prior line of chemotherapy.

In the TKI-naïve ALK-positive NSCLC population, the preliminary ORR was 86% (38/44; 2 uPRs) and a CR rate of 9% (4/44; 1 uCR with prior confirmed PR) was observed. DOR ranged from 1.7+ to 14.8+ months with DOR ≥ 6 and 12 months of 91% (95% CI: 70, 98) and only two progression events among responders. In 9 patients with measurable intracranial lesions, the IC-ORR was 78% (7/9) and the intracranial CR rate was 44% (4/9; 1 IC-uCR with prior confirmed IC-PR). The IC-DOR ranged from 3.1+ to 7.0+ months with no CNS progression among responders.

Neladalkib demonstrated a generally well-tolerated safety profile consistent with its ALK-selective, TRK-sparing design. In the 656 patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC treated at RP2D as of the data cut-off date, the median duration of exposure was 6.0 months (range, 0.1, 28.4). The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurring in ≥ 15% of patients were alanine aminotransferase increased (47%), aspartate aminotransferase increased (44%), constipation (28%), dysgeusia (23%), peripheral edema (18%) and cough and nausea (16% each). The most common TEAE of transaminase elevations were generally observed to be asymptomatic lab abnormalities that were low-grade, transient, and reversible with dose interruptions or reductions. Preliminary data suggest increased incidence in less heavily pre-treated patients. Enhanced monitoring for transaminase elevations and prompt dose interventions have been implemented in the protocol for the ALKAZAR Phase 3 randomized, controlled clinical trial. Across the 656 patients treated in ALKOVE-1 at RP2D, dose reductions due to TEAEs occurred in 17% of patients and 5% of patients discontinued treatment due to TEAEs.

We have completed our pre-NDA meeting with the FDA and plan to move forward with an NDA submission of the data for TKI pre-treated patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC from our ALKOVE-1 study of neladalkib in the first half of 2026. We plan to present detailed study results at a future medical meeting.

NVL-330

Our third product candidate, NVL-330, is a brain-penetrant human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-selective inhibitor designed with the aim to address the combined medical needs of treating tumors driven by HER2 mutations and alterations, including HER2 exon 20 insertion mutations (HER2ex20), treating brain metastases, and avoiding treatment-limiting adverse events including due to off-target inhibition of wild-type epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Preclinical data have shown that NVL-330 inhibited a broad range of HER2 oncogenic alterations, including HER2ex20, in cell-based assays, was brain penetrant and was selective for HER2 oncogenic alterations over the structurally related wild-type EGFR. Additionally, new preclinical data were presented at the AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics in October 2025, further supporting NVL-330’s potentially differentiated brain-penetrant profile. Compared to several currently available and investigational HER2 TKIs in the same preclinical assays, NVL-330 demonstrated a favorable efflux ratio and brain partitioning, metrics that are potentially positive predictors of brain exposure in humans. In preclinical models of intracranial activity, NVL-330 induced deep intracranial regression in mice. In the same models, the approved therapies Enhertu (T-DXd) and Hernexeos (zongertinib) did not induce intracranial regression at their clinically relevant doses. Additionally, NVL-330 induced intracranial tumor regression in mice that had progressed in the CNS on zongertinib.

We are currently enrolling patients in the HEROEX-1 clinical trial, a global Phase 1a/1b, multicenter, open-label, dose-escalation and expansion trial evaluating NVL-330 in pre-treated patients with advanced HER2-altered NSCLC, including those with HER2ex20 mutations. In July 2024, we announced that the first patient was dosed with NVL-330 in the HEROEX-1 trial. The HEROEX-1 trial is evaluating the overall safety and tolerability of NVL-330. Additional objectives include determination of the RP2D, characterization of the pharmacokinetic profile, and preliminary evaluation of anti-tumor activity.

Discovery Programs

We have prioritized a number of additional small molecule research programs following an assessment of medical need. Research for these programs is ongoing, and we plan to disclose a new development candidate by year-end 2026.

Our approach

Our approach is built on four core principles:

•

Patient-driven focus. We prioritize therapeutic targets where patient needs and limitations of existing therapies can be identified and characterized in partnership with physician-scientists. Leveraging our team’s deep expertise and experience in drug discovery, we translate those medical insights into detailed target product profiles with well-defined selection criteria to ensure that our product candidates are purpose-built to address specific and current medical needs.

•

Deep expertise in chemistry and structure-based drug design to achieve precise selectivity (“Threading the needle”). We prioritize exquisite target selectivity in the design of our molecules to precisely meet the selection criteria we have pre-defined in our target product profiles. Leveraging our team’s deep expertise in chemistry and structure-based drug design, we ‘thread the needle’ to navigate competing molecular challenges and develop innovative small molecules that have the potential to overcome resistance, minimize adverse events, optimize CNS activity, and drive more durable responses.

Table of Contents

•

Efficient drug discovery and development. We prioritize programs that may leverage our pipeline discovery and development efforts and experience, with a specific focus on clinically proven kinase targets, with the goal of bringing our therapies to patients as soon as possible. Building on existing discovery tools and processes for the investigation of clinically proven kinase targets, we further leverage our team’s deep experience in the advancement of oncology product candidates from nomination through product launch, including potential opportunities for accelerated regulatory pathways, to achieve an efficient approach to drug discovery and development.

•

Commercialization of our product candidates, if approved, in key geographies. We retain full development and worldwide commercialization rights to our pipeline of precisely targeted therapies. We are building a fully integrated, commercial-stage biotechnology company capable of not only discovering and developing, but delivering new medicines for patients living with cancer.

With the continued increase in the adoption of kinase inhibitors as the standard of care across a broadening set of indications, we believe that opportunities to apply our established approach of efficient drug discovery and development will continue to grow.

Our programs

We are currently advancing two parallel lead programs in addition to multiple early-stage development and discovery programs, as summarized in Figure 1 below. We hold worldwide development and commercialization rights to our product candidates.

Figure 1. Our pipeline of kinase inhibitor product candidates

Zidesamtinib (NVL-520, ROS1-Selective inhibitor)

ROS1 rearrangements occur in up to approximately 3% of metastatic NSCLCs. At the time of diagnosis, up to 40% of these patients present with accompanying brain metastases. Beyond NSCLC, ROS1 rearrangements have also been reported across a wide range of solid tumors as well as lymphoma.

There are four FDA-approved TKIs for the treatment of patients with ROS1-positive NSCLC: Xalkori (crizotinib), Rozlytrek (entrectinib), Augtyro (repotrectinib), and Ibtrozi (taletrectinib). Additional treatment options for patients who are TKI pre-treated include the TKI lorlatinib, recommended for use according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, chemotherapy with or without immunotherapy, or experimental therapies in clinical trials. The current standard of care for TKI-naïve patients with ROS1-positive NSCLC is crizotinib. There is no clear standard of care for TKI pre-treated patients with ROS1-positive NSCLC.

Zidesamtinib is a brain-penetrant ROS1-selective inhibitor designed with the aim to remain active in tumors that have developed resistance to currently available ROS1 inhibitors, including tumors with the prevalent G2032R resistance mutation and those with the S1986Y/F, F2004C, F2004V, L2026M, D2033N, or G2101A resistance mutations. We believe we have optimized zidesamtinib for brain penetrance and ROS1 selectivity to potentially improve treatment options for patients with brain metastases and avoid CNS adverse events related to off-target inhibition of the structurally related TRK family.

Table of Contents

We are currently investigating zidesamtinib in the Phase 2 portion of our ARROS-1 clinical trial, a first-in-human global Phase 1/2, multicenter, open-label, dose-escalation and expansion study evaluating zidesamtinib as an oral monotherapy in patients with advanced ROS1-positive NSCLC and other solid tumors. The Phase 1 dose-escalation portion of the ARROS-1 clinical trial was conducted in patients with advanced ROS1-positive NSCLC or other solid tumors who had received at least one prior ROS1 TKI or any prior therapy, respectively, and evaluated the safety, tolerability and RP2D of zidesamtinib, among other objectives. Upon determination of the RP2D (100 mg QD), the trial transitioned into the ongoing Phase 2 portion designed to evaluate zidesamtinib in patients with advanced ROS1-positive NSCLC and other solid tumors and to support potential registration of zidesamtinib in TKI-naïve and/or TKI pre-treated ROS1-positive NSCLC patients.

In November 2025, the FDA accepted for filing our NDA for zidesamtinib for the treatment of adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic ROS1-positive NSCLC who received at least 1 prior ROS1 TKI. The application has been assigned a PDUFA target action date of September 18, 2026. Additionally, we plan to submit data from the ongoing TKI-naïve cohort in the Phase 2 portion of the ARROS-1 trial to the FDA to support a potential label expansion of zidesamtinib in TKI-naïve patients with advanced ROS1-positive NSCLC in the second half of 2026.

Neladalkib (NVL-655, ALK-Selective inhibitor)

ALK rearrangements occur in approximately 5% of metastatic NSCLCs. At the time of initial diagnosis, up to 40% of these patients present with accompanying brain metastases. Beyond NSCLC, ALK fusions have also been reported in various other solid tumors as well as lymphoma.

There are six FDA-approved TKIs for the treatment of patients with ALK-positive NSCLC: Xalkori (crizotinib), Zykadia (ceritinib), Alecensa (alectinib), Alunbrig (brigatinib), Lorbrena (lorlatinib), and Ensacove (ensartinib). Additional treatment options for patients who are TKI pre-treated include chemotherapy with or without immunotherapy, or experimental therapies in clinical trials. The current standard of care for TKI-naïve patients with ALK-positive NSCLC is alectinib, which had an estimated $1.9 billion in reported global 2025 net sales. Following treatment with alectinib, the current second-line TKI standard of care is lorlatinib with an estimated $1.0 billion in reported global 2025 net sales across all indications. There is no clear third-line TKI standard of care for patients with ALK-positive NSCLC.

Neladalkib is a brain-penetrant ALK-selective inhibitor designed with the aim to remain active in tumors that have developed resistance to first-, second-, and third-generation ALK inhibitors, including tumors with the G1202R resistance mutation or compound resistance mutations, including G1202R/L1196M, G1202R/G1269A, or G1202R/L1198F. We believe we have optimized neladalkib for brain penetrance and ALK selectivity to potentially improve treatment options for patients with brain metastases and avoid CNS adverse events related to off-target inhibition of the structurally related TRK family.

We are currently investigating neladalkib in the Phase 2 portion of our ALKOVE-1 clinical trial, a first-in-human global Phase 1/2, multicenter, open-label, dose-escalation and expansion study evaluating neladalkib as an oral monotherapy in patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC and other solid tumors. The Phase 1 dose-escalation portion of the ALKOVE-1 clinical trial was conducted in patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC or other solid tumors who had received at least one prior ALK TKI or at least one prior systemic anticancer therapy, respectively, and evaluated the safety, tolerability and RP2D of neladalkib, among other objectives. Upon determination of the RP2D (150 mg QD), the trial transitioned into the ongoing Phase 2 portion designed to evaluate neladalkib in patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC and other solid tumors, to support potential registration of neladalkib for TKI pre-treated patients with ALK-positive NSCLC, and to enable preliminary evaluation for patients with ALK-positive NSCLC who are TKI-naïve.

We are also investigating neladalkib in the ALKAZAR Phase 3 clinical trial with registrational intent for TKI-naïve patients. The ALKAZAR clinical trial is a global, randomized, controlled trial evaluating neladalkib versus the current standard of care, alectinib, for the treatment of patients with TKI-naïve ALK-positive NSCLC.

NVL-330 (HER2-Selective inhibitor)

Mutations and alterations in HER2 are oncogenic and are found in approximately 3% of cancers, including up to 4% of advanced NSCLC patients. Within NSCLC, 90% of HER2 mutations occur through HER2ex20. HER2 mutations have also been identified in multiple cancers, including breast, esophageal, endometrial, bladder, colorectal, skin, ovarian, head and neck, and cervical. Brain metastases are present at diagnosis in an estimated 19% of HER2 mutant-positive NSCLC patients, and more patients will develop them during treatment.

There are two HER2 inhibitors approved by the FDA for the treatment of HER2-altered NSCLC: Hernexeos (zongertinib) and Hyrnuo (sevabertinib). Additionally, Enhertu (T-DXd), an antibody-drug conjugate, has been approved by the FDA for the treatment of HER2 mutant NSCLC.

Table of Contents

NVL-330 is a brain-penetrant HER2-selective inhibitor which we believe we have optimized for selectivity versus the structurally related wild-type EGFR that is associated with dose-limiting side effects including skin rash and gastrointestinal toxicity. We are currently investigating NVL-330 in our HEROEX-1 clinical trial, a first-in-human global Phase 1a/1b, multicenter, open-label, dose-escalation and expansion trial evaluating NVL-330 as an oral monotherapy in pre-treated patients with advanced HER2-altered NSCLC, including those with HER2ex20 mutations.

Discovery programs

We continue to evaluate new program areas with a focus on addressing the limitations of existing therapies for other clinically proven kinase targets in oncology. As treatment landscapes evolve, we also continue to work with our physician-scientist partners to anticipate emerging patient needs in established areas of development and leverage our existing expertise in the area with the aim to efficiently discover and develop new product candidates with the potential to comprehensively address those emerging challenges. We believe that opportunities to apply our established model of efficient drug discovery and development continue to expand, and align with the increasing adoption of kinase inhibitors as standard of care across a broadening set of indications. We plan to disclose a new development candidate by year-end 2026.

OnTarget 2026 operating plan

OnTarget 2026 delineates our three-year operating plan towards bringing new, potential best-in-class medicines to patients with cancer and is summarized in Figure 2 below. As part of this plan announced in January 2024, we completed the below milestones in 2024 and 2025:

•

2024: Execute on Global Registrational Strategies

✓ Progress the Phase 2 portion of the ARROS-1 trial of zidesamtinib in patients with advanced ROS1-positive NSCLC with registrational intent;

✓ Initiate the Phase 2 portion of the ALKOVE-1 trial of neladalkib in patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC with registrational intent;

✓ Launch our front-line development strategy for our ALK program;

✓ Present interim data from the ongoing ARROS-1 and ALKOVE-1 clinical trials at medical meetings; and

✓ Initiate a Phase 1 trial for our HER2 program.

•

2025: First Pivotal Data

✓ Report pivotal data for TKI pre-treated patients with advanced ROS1-positive NSCLC from our ARROS-1 Phase 1/2 trial of zidesamtinib in the first half of 2025;

✓ Complete a rolling NDA submission for zidesamtinib for TKI pre-treated patients with advanced ROS1-positive NSCLC in the third quarter of 2025;

✓ Report pivotal data for TKI pre-treated patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC from our ALKOVE-1 Phase 1/2 trial of neladalkib by year-end 2025;

✓ Initiate the ALKAZAR Phase 3 randomized, controlled trial of neladalkib for TKI-naïve patients with ALK-positive NSCLC early in the second half of 2025; and

✓ Progress the HEROEX-1 Phase 1a/1b trial of NVL-330 for patients with advanced HER2-altered NSCLC.

In January 2026, we outlined anticipated milestones for 2026, leading to our first potential U.S. commercial launch:

•

2026: First Approved Product

• Commercial launch in the U.S. of zidesamtinib for the treatment of adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic ROS1-positive NSCLC who received at least 1 prior ROS1 TKI, pending FDA review;

• Submit data to the FDA for potential label expansion of zidesamtinib in TKI-naïve patients with advanced ROS1-positive NSCLC in the second half of 2026;

• Submit an NDA for neladalkib in TKI pre-treated patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC in the first half of 2026;

• Progress the ongoing ALKAZAR Phase 3 randomized, controlled trial of neladalkib for TKI-naïve patients with ALK-positive NSCLC;

• Progress the ongoing HEROEX-1 Phase 1a/1b trial of NVL-330 for patients with advanced HER2-altered NSCLC; and

• Disclose a new development candidate by year-end 2026.

Table of Contents

Figure 2. OnTarget 2026 Operating Plan: The Path to Patient Impact

Our team

We have assembled a management team of biopharmaceutical industry veterans with extensive experience in developing novel oncology therapies from research through commercialization.

Our seasoned leadership team has broad experience at both large global organizations, including C.H. Boehringer Sohn AG & Ko. KG, Pfizer, Sanofi S.A., EMD Serono, GlaxoSmithKline plc, and BeiGene, Ltd., as well as established biotech companies, including Infinity, Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc., Blueprint Medicines Corporation, and ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Together, our leadership team has contributed directly to the regulatory approval of 12 therapies, including five kinase inhibitors, nine oncology therapeutics, and 10 small molecules: CLOLAR/Evoltra (clofarabine), FABRAZYME (agalsidase beta), COPIKTRA (duvelisib), BRUKINSA (zanubrutinib), MOZOBIL (plerixafor injection), BAVENCIO (avelumab), TIBSOVO (ivosidenib tablets), TIVICAY (dolutegravir), ICLUSIG (ponatinib), GAVRETO (pralsetinib), ALUNBRIG (brigatinib) and PYRUKYND (mitapivat).

Our values

Our three core values are:

•

Patient Impact. We care deeply about what we are building to change the future for patients.

•

Empowerment. We are all responsible for delivering on our mission to develop new medicines for patients: listen, speak up, and engage.

•

Collaboration. We know that we are better together and thrive when we challenge each other to find a better way for patients.

Our strategy

Our goal is to be a leading biopharmaceutical company that translates our deep expertise in structure-based drug design to discover, develop, and deliver novel, selective therapeutics that enable durable responses for patients with cancer. The key elements of our strategy include:

•

Obtain regulatory approval for zidesamtinib, our first lead product candidate and a differentiated ROS1-selective inhibitor, for TKI pre-treated patients with ROS1-positive NSCLC and advance toward potential label expansion in TKI-naïve patients with ROS1-positive NSCLC. The FDA has accepted for filing our NDA for zidesamtinib for the treatment of adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic ROS1-positive NSCLC who received at least 1 prior ROS1 TKI, and assigned a PDUFA target action date of September 18, 2026. Additionally, we plan to submit data from the ongoing TKI-naïve cohort in the Phase 2 portion of the

Table of Contents

ARROS-1 clinical trial to the FDA to support a potential label expansion of zidesamtinib in TKI-naïve patients with advanced ROS1-positive NSCLC in the second half of 2026.

•

Advance the ongoing clinical development of neladalkib, our second lead product candidate and a differentiated ALK-selective inhibitor, through the Phase 2 portion of our ALKOVE-1 study designed to support potential regulatory approval for patients with TKI pre-treated ALK-positive NSCLC. Clinical investigation is ongoing in the Phase 2 portion of our ALKOVE-1 study, a first-in-human, global Phase 1/2 clinical trial investigating neladalkib in advanced ALK-positive NSCLC and other solid tumors. Neladalkib has received FDA Breakthrough Therapy designation for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic ALK-positive NSCLC who have been previously treated with two or more ALK TKIs. In November 2025, we announced positive topline data for neladalkib in TKI pre-treated patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC from the ALKOVE-1 Phase 1/2 clinical trial. We have completed our pre-NDA meeting with the FDA and plan to move forward with an NDA submission of the data for TKI pre-treated patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC from our ALKOVE-1 study of neladalkib in the first half of 2026.

•

Commercialize our product candidates, including, if approved, zidesamtinib and neladalkib, in key geographies and opportunistically pursue strategic collaborations to maximize the full potential of our pipeline. We retain full development and worldwide commercialization rights to our pipeline of precisely targeted therapies. We are building a fully integrated, commercial-stage biotechnology company capable of not only discovering and developing, but delivering new medicines for patients living with cancer. We are actively building the commercial infrastructure required, including our focused sales, market access, and marketing organization, to support our potential U.S. commercial launch of zidesamtinib for TKI pre-treated patients with ROS1-positive NSCLC in 2026, if approved, as well as planning for U.S. commercial launch readiness for neladalkib, as well as potential label expansions for both programs. In the future, we may enter into strategic collaborations around certain targets, product candidates, disease areas, or geographies, if we believe these collaborations could accelerate the development and commercialization of our product candidates and allow us to realize the full potential of our pipeline.

•

Progress our ALKAZAR Phase 3 randomized, controlled trial of neladalkib versus ALECENSA (alectinib), designed to support potential regulatory approval for patients with TKI-naïve ALK-positive NSCLC. Clinical investigation is ongoing in our ALKAZAR clinical trial, a global, Phase 3, randomized, controlled trial evaluating neladalkib versus the current standard of care. The ALKAZAR clinical trial is designed to enroll approximately 450 patients with TKI-naïve ALK-positive NSCLC, randomized 1:1 to receive neladalkib monotherapy or ALECENSA (alectinib) monotherapy, reflecting input from collaborating physician-scientists and alignment with global regulatory agencies and patients.

•

Progress our other development and discovery stage programs, including for HER2-altered NSCLC, while continuing to expand our pipeline of precisely targeted novel product candidates. We prioritize clinically proven kinase targets where the design of exquisitely selective inhibitors may overcome challenges of existing therapies including kinase resistance, kinase selectivity, and limited CNS activity. We intend to develop product candidates as monotherapy treatment and may also strategically pursue the development of synergistic combinations. We are progressing our HEROEX-1 Phase 1a/1b clinical trial of NVL-330 for patients with advanced HER2-altered NSCLC and plan to disclose a new development candidate by year-end 2026.

•

Continue to partner with physician-scientists to characterize current and emerging medical needs for patients and the limitations of existing therapies. We prioritize clinically proven kinase targets where clear remaining or emerging medical needs for patients can be defined by our physician-scientist partners, and where we believe those needs can be addressed through the design of highly selective small molecule inhibitors. Combining clinical insight with our drug design capabilities and our development expertise, we seek to meet real-world medical needs through the development of detailed product profiles and well-defined selection criteria. Accordingly, we plan to disclose a new development candidate by year-end 2026. We believe this approach maximizes our opportunity to address the challenges of existing therapies and develop molecules that achieve deep, durable responses with minimal adverse events.

Competition

The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition, and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. While we believe that our technology, the expertise of our team, and our development experience and scientific knowledge provide us with competitive advantages, we face competition from many different sources, including pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies, and public and private research institutions.

Product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize may compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future, and we cannot predict what the standard of care will be as our product candidates progress through clinical development into commercialization. We believe the key competitive factors affecting the success of all of our programs are likely to be efficacy, including DOR, safety, and patient convenience. Potentially competitive therapies fall primarily into the following groups of treatment:

•

traditional cancer therapies, including surgery, radiation, and drug therapy, including chemotherapy, hormone therapy and targeted drug therapy or a combination of such methods;

Table of Contents

•

approved kinase inhibitors, including FDA-approved ROS1 TKIs (Xalkori, Rozlytrek, Augtyro, and Ibtrozi marketed by Pfizer, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, and Nuvation Bio Inc., respectively), FDA-approved ALK TKIs (Xalkori, Zykadia, Alecensa, Alunbrig, Lorbrena and Ensacove, marketed by Pfizer, Novartis AG, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd./Roche, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Pfizer, and Xcovery Holdings, Inc., respectively), FDA-approved HER2 TKIs (Hernexeos and Hyrnuo, marketed by Boehringer Ingelheim and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, respectively) and FDA-approved antibody drug conjugate (Enhertu, jointly marketed by Daiichi Sankyo and AstraZeneca);

•

ROS1 TKIs in clinical development;

•

ALK TKIs in clinical development;

•

HER2ex20 TKIs in clinical development;

•

TKIs not approved but recommended for use in the NCCN guidelines; and

•

other therapies targeting kinases, including antibody or antibody-drug conjugate approaches, that are approved or in clinical development.

Many of our competitors, either alone or with their collaborators, have significantly greater financial resources, established presence in the market, and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical and clinical testing, obtaining regulatory approvals and reimbursement and marketing approved products than we do. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. Additional mergers and acquisitions may result in even more resources being concentrated in our competitors.

The availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors will also significantly affect the pricing and competitiveness of our products. Some cancer treatments are branded and subject to patent protection, and others are available on a generic basis. Insurers and other third-party payors may also encourage the use of generic products or specific branded products. In addition, our competitors may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for our products, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. As a result, obtaining market acceptance of, and gaining significant share of the market for, any of our product candidates that we successfully introduce to the market will pose challenges.

Revenue Sharing Agreements

Revenue Sharing Agreement with Deerfield

We are party to an Amended and Restated Revenue Sharing Agreement with Deerfield Healthcare Innovations Fund, L.P. and Deerfield Private Design Fund IV, L.P. (collectively, Deerfield) pursuant to which we are obligated to pay Deerfield a fixed low single-digit percentage rate of net sales of certain commercial products discovered, identified or generated by us during the period commencing on February 2, 2017 and ending on the date that is the earlier of (i) five years after Deerfield’s last investment in our capital stock and (ii) the fifth anniversary of our initial public offering. Any payments in respect of such products would be through the later of 12 years from the first commercial sale in a country or the expiration of the last-to-expire patent in that country. To date, we have not recorded any net sales and, as a result, have not paid any amounts under this agreement. There are no upfront fees or milestone payments required to be paid by us under this agreement.

Revenue Sharing Agreement with our scientific founder

We are party to an Amended and Restated Revenue Sharing Agreement with our scientific founder, Matthew Shair, Ph.D., pursuant to which we were obligated to pay Dr. Shair 1.5% of net sales of certain commercial products that either have a mechanism of action of (i) ROS1 inhibition and contain zidesamtinib or a backup compound substituted therefor in the event of a product development failure or (ii) ALK inhibition and contain neladalkib or a backup compound substituted therefor in the event of a product development failure, in each case through the later of 12 years from the first commercial sale in a country or the expiration of the last-to-expire patent in that country. Dr. Shair assigned this agreement to Royalty Pharma plc (Royalty Pharma) in December 2025 and, as a result, any payments we are obligated to make under the agreement will be made to Royalty Pharma. To date, we have not recorded any net sales and, as a result, have not paid any amounts under this agreement. There are no upfront fees or milestone payments required to be paid by us under this agreement.

Intellectual property

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability (i) to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary and/or intellectual property rights and protection for our technology, inventions, and improvements; (ii) to protect and preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets; (iii) to defend and enforce our proprietary and intellectual property rights, including any patents that we may own or license in the future; and (iv) to operate without infringing the valid and enforceable patents and other proprietary and/or intellectual property rights of third parties.

Table of Contents

We wholly own Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) applications, U.S. patent applications, U.S. patents, U.S. provisional patent applications, foreign patents, and foreign patent applications relating to our lead and planned product candidates. We strive to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, filing patent applications in the U.S. and in jurisdictions outside of the U.S. directed to our proprietary technology, inventions, improvements, and product candidates that are important to the development and implementation of our business. We also rely on trade secrets and know-how relating to our proprietary technology and product candidates and continuing innovation to develop, strengthen and maintain our proprietary position in the field of oncology. Our strategic plans also include reliance on data exclusivity, market exclusivity, and patent term extensions when available.

Our ability to stop third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing products identical or similar to ours will depend on the extent to which we have rights under valid and enforceable patents, trade secrets, or other intellectual property rights that cover these activities. The patent rights of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies like ours are generally uncertain and can involve complex legal, scientific, and factual issues. Our and any future licensor’s current and future patent applications may not result in the issuance of any patent in any particular jurisdiction, and the claims of any current or future issued patents, even if those claims are valid and enforceable, may not provide sufficient protection from competitors. Any owned or in-licensed patent rights we may obtain may not enable us to prevent others from replicating, manufacturing, using, or administering our product candidates for any indication. Moreover, the subject matter initially claimed in a patent application may be significantly reduced before a patent is issued, and a patent’s scope can be reinterpreted after issuance. In addition, any patent we may own or in-license may be challenged, circumvented or invalidated by third parties. As a result, we cannot ensure that any of our product candidates will be protected by valid and enforceable patents.

We have filed certain patent applications directed generally to compositions of matter, pharmaceutical formulations, and therapeutic methods of using the foregoing related to our ROS1, ALK, and HER2 programs, as summarized below. We also possess substantial know-how and trade secrets relating to the development and commercialization of our product candidates, including related manufacturing processes and technology. In addition, we own certain registered trademarks and pending trademark applications in the U.S. and other countries.

With respect to our ROS1 program, we own one pending PCT patent application, five pending U.S. patent applications, three issued U.S. patents, 61 pending foreign patent applications, and three issued foreign patents directed to compositions of matter for our ROS1 inhibitory compounds (e.g., zidesamtinib) and related solid forms as well as methods of use. Any U.S. or foreign patent that has issued or may issue based on the pending patent applications is expected to expire no earlier than 2041, not including any patent term adjustments or patent term extensions that may be awarded. With respect to our ALK program, we own two pending PCT patent applications, three pending U.S. patent applications, two issued U.S. patents, two pending U.S. provisional patent applications, 60 pending foreign patent applications, and three issued foreign patents directed to compositions of matter for our ALK inhibitory compounds (e.g., neladalkib) and related solid forms as well as methods of use. Any U.S. or foreign patent that has issued or may issue based on the pending patent applications is expected to expire no earlier than 2041, not including any patent term adjustments or patent term extensions that may be awarded. With respect to our HER2 program, we own one pending U.S. patent application, one issued U.S. patent, 25 pending foreign patent applications, and two issued foreign patents directed to compositions of matter for our HER2 inhibitory compounds (e.g., NVL-330) and related methods of use. Any U.S. or foreign patent that has issued or may issue based on the pending patent applications is expected to expire no earlier than 2042, not including any patent term adjustments or patent term extensions that may be awarded.

Our pending and planned applications may not result in issued patents and we cannot provide any assurance that any patents that might be issued in the future will protect our current and future product candidates or provide us with any competitive advantage. Moreover, U.S. provisional patent applications are not eligible to become issued patents until, among other things, we file a non-provisional patent application within 12 months of the filing of the related provisional patent applications. With regard to our provisional patent applications, if we do not timely file one or more non-provisional patent applications, we may lose our priority date with respect to our provisional patent applications and therefore any patent protection on the inventions disclosed in such provisional patent applications. While we intend to timely file one or more non-provisional patent applications relating to our provisional patent applications, we cannot predict whether any such patent applications will result in the issuance of patent(s) that provide us with any competitive advantage. For more information regarding the risks related to our intellectual property, please see “Risk Factors—Risks related to our intellectual property.”

Commercialization

We retain full development and worldwide commercialization rights to our product candidates. We are actively building the commercial infrastructure required, including our focused sales, market access, and marketing organization, to support our potential U.S. commercial launch of zidesamtinib for TKI pre-treated patients with ROS1-positive NSCLC in 2026, if approved, as well as planning for U.S. commercial launch readiness for neladalkib, as well as potential label expansions for both programs. We plan to commercialize zidesamtinib and neladalkib, if approved, on our own in the U.S. We intend to explore commercialization on our own, or potentially with a collaboration partner, in jurisdictions outside of the U.S. for these product candidates, if approved. Clinical data, the size of the addressable patient population, and the size of the commercial infrastructure and manufacturing needs all influence our current and future commercialization plans.

Table of Contents

Manufacturing

We do not own or operate, and currently have no plans to establish, any manufacturing facilities. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates for preclinical and clinical testing, as well as for commercial manufacturing if any of our product candidates obtain marketing approval. We also rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties to package, label, store and distribute our investigational product candidates, as well as our commercial products if marketing approval is obtained.

We believe that this strategy allows us to maintain a more efficient infrastructure by eliminating the need for us to invest in our own manufacturing facilities, equipment, and personnel while also enabling us to focus our expertise and resources on the development and commercialization, if approved, of our product candidates.

All of our product candidates are small molecules and are manufactured in synthetic processes from available starting materials. The chemistry appears amenable to scale-up and does not currently require unusual equipment in the manufacturing process. We expect to continue to develop product candidates that can be produced cost-effectively at contract manufacturing facilities.

Currently, active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) (i.e., drug substance) for zidesamtinib, neladalkib and NVL-330 are manufactured in accordance with current good manufacturing practices (cGMPs). The drug product formulation is being developed with the goal of producing tablets with consistent, immediate release dissolution profiles that can be reproducibly manufactured using automated equipment. All manufacturing activities for zidesamtinib, neladalkib and NVL-330 drug products are performed in accordance with cGMPs and we currently rely on the vendors performing these manufacturing activities as single-source contract manufacturing organizations (CMOs).

We are continuing to develop our supply chain for each of our product candidates and have or intend to put in place framework agreements under which third-party CMOs will generally provide us with necessary quantities of API and drug product on a project-by-project basis based on our development needs, as well as for commercial manufacturing needs if any of our product candidates obtain marketing approval.

As we advance our product candidates through development and, if approved, into commercialization, we will continue to explore adding additional backup suppliers across the supply chain, including for key starting material, API and drug product for each of our product candidates to protect against any potential supply disruptions.

We generally expect to rely on third parties for the manufacture of any companion diagnostics we may develop.

However, there are no assurances that our manufacturing and supply chain infrastructure will remain uninterrupted and reliable, or that the third parties we rely on will be able to satisfy our demand in a timely manner and not have supply chain disruptions due to stock-outs or raw material shortages and/or greater than anticipated demand or quality issues given the operational challenges and raw material shortages that have been experienced in the past.

Government regulation

The research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, packaging, labeling, storage, record-keeping, distribution, import, export, promotion, advertising, marketing, sale, pricing and reimbursement of drug products are extensively regulated by governmental authorities in the U.S. and other countries and jurisdictions, including the European Union (EU). The processes for obtaining regulatory approvals in the U.S. and in foreign countries and jurisdictions, along with compliance with applicable statutes and regulations and other regulatory requirements, both pre-approval and post-approval, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. The regulatory requirements applicable to drug product development, approval and marketing are subject to change, and regulations and administrative guidance often are revised or reinterpreted by the agencies in ways that may have a significant impact on our business.

U.S. Government Regulation of Drug Products

In the U.S., the FDA approves and regulates human drug products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). A company, institution, or organization that takes responsibility for the initiation and management of a clinical development program for such products is typically referred to as a sponsor. The failure of a sponsor to comply with applicable U.S. requirements may result in FDA delays or refusal to approve pending NDAs, and may subject the sponsor to administrative or judicial sanctions, such as issuance of warning letters, or the imposition of fines, civil penalties, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions and/or civil or criminal prosecution brought by the FDA and the U.S. Department of Justice or other governmental entities.

The FDA must approve our product candidates for therapeutic indications before they may be marketed in the U.S. A sponsor seeking approval to market and distribute a new drug product in the U.S. must satisfactorily complete each of the following steps:

•

completion of preclinical laboratory tests, animal studies and formulation studies according to good laboratory practices (GLP) regulations or other applicable regulations;

Table of Contents

•

design of a clinical protocol and submission to the FDA of an IND, which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin and must be updated when certain changes are made;

•

approval by an independent institutional review board (IRB) or ethics committee representing each clinical trial site before each clinical trial may be initiated;

•

performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials in accordance with applicable IND regulations, good clinical practices (GCPs) and other clinical-trial related regulations to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the investigational product for each proposed indication;

•

preparation and submission to the FDA of an NDA requesting marketing approval for one or more proposed indications, including payment of application user fees;

•

payment of user fees pursuant to PDUFA;

•

review of the NDA by an FDA advisory committee, where applicable;

•

satisfactory completion of one or more FDA inspections of the manufacturing facility or facilities at which the drug is produced to assess compliance with cGMP requirements to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality, and purity;

•

satisfactory completion of any FDA audits of clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCPs and the integrity of the clinical data submitted in support of the NDA; and

•

FDA review and approval of the NDA, which may be subject to additional post-approval requirements, including the potential requirement to implement a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), and any post-approval studies required by the FDA.

Preclinical Studies

Before a sponsor begins testing a product candidate with potential therapeutic value in humans, the product candidate enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, formulation, and stability, as well as other studies to evaluate, among other things, the toxicity of the product candidate. These studies are typically referred to as IND-enabling studies. The conduct of the preclinical tests and formulation of the compounds for testing must comply with federal regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations and standards and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal Welfare Act, if applicable. The results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND. Some long-term preclinical testing, such as animal tests of reproductive adverse events and carcinogenicity, and long-term toxicity studies, may continue after the IND is submitted.

The IND and IRB Processes

An IND is an exemption from the FDCA that allows an unapproved product candidate to be shipped in interstate commerce for use in an investigational clinical trial and a request for FDA authorization to administer such investigational product to humans. An IND must be secured prior to interstate shipment and administration of any product candidate that is not the subject of an approved NDA. The FDA will review an IND to assure the safety and rights of patients and to help assure that the quality of the investigation will be adequate to permit an evaluation of the investigational drug product. In support of a request for an IND, sponsors must submit a protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places the trial on a clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial may proceed. As a result, submission of an IND may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence.

Following commencement of a clinical trial under an IND, the FDA may also place a clinical hold or partial clinical hold on that trial. A clinical hold is an order issued by the FDA to the sponsor to delay a proposed clinical investigation or to suspend an ongoing investigation. A partial clinical hold is a delay or suspension of only part of the clinical work requested under the IND. For example, a partial clinical hold might state that a specific protocol or part of a protocol may not proceed, while other parts of a protocol or other protocols may do so. No more than 30 days after the imposition of a clinical hold or partial clinical hold, the FDA will provide the sponsor a written explanation of the basis for the hold. Following the issuance of a clinical hold or partial clinical hold, a clinical investigation may only resume once the FDA has notified the sponsor that the investigation may proceed. The FDA will base that determination on information provided by the sponsor correcting the deficiencies previously cited or otherwise satisfying the FDA that the investigation can proceed or recommence. Occasionally, clinical holds are imposed due to manufacturing issues that may present safety issues for the clinical study subjects.

In addition to the foregoing IND requirements, an IRB representing each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that institution, and the IRB must conduct continuing review and reapprove the study at least annually. The IRB, which must operate in compliance with FDA regulations, must review and approve, among other things, the study protocol and informed consent information to be provided to study subjects and must monitor the trial

Table of Contents

until completed. An IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution, or an institution it represents, if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the product candidate has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

Additionally, some trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the trial sponsor, known as a data monitoring committee (DMC). This group provides authorization as to whether or not a trial may move forward at designated checkpoints based on review of available data from the study, to which only the DMC maintains access. Suspension or termination of development during any phase of a clinical trial can occur if the DMC determines that the participants or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk.

Expanded Access

Expanded access, sometimes called “compassionate use,” is the use of investigational new products outside of clinical trials to treat patients with serious or immediately life-threatening diseases or conditions when there are no comparable or satisfactory alternative treatment options. The rules and regulations related to expanded access are intended to improve access to investigational products for patients who may benefit from investigational therapies. The FDA’s regulations allow access to investigational products under an IND by the company or the treating physician for treatment purposes on a case-by-case basis for: individual patients (single-patient IND applications for treatment in emergency settings and non-emergency settings); intermediate-size patient populations; and larger populations for use of the investigational product under a treatment protocol or Treatment IND Application.

When considering an IND application for expanded access to an investigational product with the purpose of treating a patient or a group of patients, the sponsor and treating physicians or investigators will determine suitability when all of the following criteria apply: patient(s) have a serious or immediately life-threatening disease or condition, and there is no comparable or satisfactory alternative therapy to diagnose, monitor, or treat the disease or condition; the potential patient benefit justifies the potential risks of the treatment and the potential risks are not unreasonable in the context or condition to be treated; and the expanded use of the investigational product for the requested treatment will not interfere with the initiation, conduct, or completion of clinical investigations that could support marketing approval of the product or otherwise compromise the potential development of the product.

There is no obligation for a sponsor to make its investigational products available for expanded access; however, as required by amendments to the FDCA included in the 21st Century Cures Act (the Cures Act), passed in 2016, if a sponsor has a policy regarding how it responds to expanded access requests with respect to product candidates in development to treat serious diseases or conditions, it must make that policy publicly available. Sponsors are required to make such policies publicly available upon the earlier of initiation of a Phase 2 or Phase 3 study for a covered investigational product; or 15 days after the investigational product receives designation from the FDA as a breakthrough therapy, fast track product, or regenerative medicine advanced therapy.

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

Human Clinical Trials

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product candidate to human subjects under the supervision of a qualified investigator in accordance with GCP requirements which include, among other things, the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing before they participate in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under written clinical trial protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, inclusion and exclusion criteria, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol, and any subsequent material amendment to the protocol, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND, and progress reports detailing the status of the clinical trials must be submitted to the FDA annually.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap or be combined. Additional studies may also be required after approval.

•

Phase 1 clinical trials are initially conducted in a limited population, which may be healthy volunteers or subjects with the target disease, to test the product candidate for safety, including adverse effects, dose tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution, excretion, and pharmacodynamics in healthy humans or in patients. During Phase 1 clinical trials, information about the product candidate’s pharmacokinetics and pharmacological effects may be obtained to permit the design of well-controlled and scientifically valid Phase 2 clinical trials.

•

Phase 2 clinical trials are generally conducted in a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, evaluate the efficacy of the product candidate for specific targeted indications and determine dose tolerance and optimal dosage.

Table of Contents

Multiple Phase 2 clinical trials may be conducted by the sponsor to obtain information prior to beginning larger and more costly Phase 3 clinical trials. Phase 2 clinical trials are typically well-controlled and closely monitored.

•

Phase 3 clinical trials proceed if the Phase 2 clinical trials demonstrate that a dose range of the product candidate is potentially effective and has an acceptable safety profile. Phase 3 clinical trials are undertaken using a larger patient population to further evaluate dosage, provide substantial evidence of clinical efficacy, and further test for safety in an expanded and diverse patient population at multiple geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. A well-controlled, statistically robust Phase 3 clinical trial may be designed to deliver the data that regulatory authorities will use to decide whether or not to approve, and, if approved, how to appropriately label a new prescription drug product. Such Phase 3 clinical trials are referred to as “pivotal” trials.

A clinical trial may combine the elements of more than one phase and the FDA often requires more than one Phase 3 trial to support marketing approval of a product candidate. A company’s designation of a clinical trial as being of a particular phase is not necessarily indicative that the study will be sufficient to satisfy the FDA requirements of that phase because this determination cannot be made until the protocol and data have been submitted to and reviewed by the FDA. Moreover, as noted above, a pivotal trial is a clinical trial that is believed to satisfy FDA requirements for the evaluation of a product candidate’s safety and efficacy such that it can be used, alone or with other pivotal or non-pivotal trials, to support regulatory approval. Generally, pivotal trials are Phase 3 trials, but they may be Phase 2 trials if the design provides a well-controlled and reliable assessment of clinical benefit, particularly in an area of unmet medical need.

In some cases, the FDA may approve an NDA for a product candidate but require the sponsor to conduct additional clinical trials to further assess the product candidate’s safety and effectiveness after approval. Such post-approval trials, typically referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of a larger number of patients in the intended treatment group. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials, such as to verify clinical benefit in the case of products approved under accelerated approval regulations. Failure to exhibit due diligence with regard to conducting mandatory Phase 4 clinical trials could result in withdrawal of FDA approval for products.

In March 2022, the FDA released final guidance entitled “Expansion Cohorts: Use in First-In-Human Clinical Trials to Expedite Development of Oncology Drugs and Biologics,” which outlines how developers can utilize an adaptive trial design commonly referred to as a seamless trial design in early stages of oncology product development (i.e., the first-in-human clinical trial) to compress the traditional three phases of trials into one continuous trial called an expansion cohort trial. Information to support the design of individual expansion cohorts are included in IND applications and assessed by the FDA. Expansion cohort trials can potentially bring efficiency to product development and reduce developmental costs and time.

In June 2023, the FDA issued draft guidance with updated recommendations for GCPs aimed at modernizing the design and conduct of clinical trials. The updates are intended to help pave the way for more efficient clinical trials to facilitate the development of medical products. The draft guidance is adopted from the International Council for Harmonisation’s recently updated E6(R3) draft guideline that was developed to enable the incorporation of rapidly developing technological and methodological innovations into the clinical trial enterprise. In addition, the FDA issued draft guidance outlining recommendations for the implementation of decentralized clinical trials.

In December 2022, with the passage of the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act (FDORA), Congress required sponsors to develop and submit a diversity action plan (DAP) for each Phase 3 clinical trial or any other “pivotal trial” of a new drug or biological product. These plans are meant to encourage the enrollment of more diverse patient populations in late-stage clinical trials of FDA-regulated products. Specifically, action plans must include the sponsor’s goals for enrollment, the underlying rationale for those goals, and an explanation of how the sponsor intends to meet them. In addition to these requirements, the legislation directs the FDA to issue new guidance on diversity action plans (DAPs). In June 2024, as mandated by FDORA, the FDA issued draft guidance outlining the general requirements for DAPs. Unlike most guidance documents issued by the FDA, the DAP guidance when finalized will have the force of law, because FDORA specifically dictates that the form and manner for submission of DAPs are to be specified in FDA guidance. On January 27, 2025, in response to an Executive Order issued by President Trump on January 21, 2025 regarding diversity, equity and inclusion programs, the FDA removed this draft guidance from its website. This action raises questions about the applicability of statutory obligations to submit DAPs and the FDA’s current thinking on best practices for clinical development.

Typically, clinical trials are designed in consultation with the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities during these development phases. The indications under development can influence the study designs employed during the conduct of clinical trials, such as for a first-line cancer treatment indication which may require head-to-head comparison data demonstrating clinical superiority or non-inferiority to currently available therapies. The timeline for first-line cancer indication development programs may also be longer than for indications sought in subsequent or later lines of treatment due to a desire for regulatory authorities to expedite access to treatments for patients whose cancer has progressed on prior treatments and in settings where there may be no available therapy option. As such, many new oncology products initially seek an indication for second or third-line treatment, which may be a smaller available treatment population in any oncology indication that has limited or no other therapy options, with subsequent development sought for those products in earlier front lines of treatment which target a larger treatment population and may require the conduct of additional clinical trials to provide comparative data against an available therapy option to show clinical superiority.

Table of Contents

Clinical Studies Outside the U.S. in Support of FDA Approval

In connection with our clinical development program, we have trial sites outside the U.S. When a foreign clinical trial is conducted under an IND, all IND requirements must be met unless waived. When a foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor must ensure that the trial complies with certain regulatory requirements of the FDA in order to use the trial as support for an IND or application for marketing approval. Specifically, the studies must be conducted in accordance with GCP, including undergoing review and receiving approval by an independent ethics committee (IEC) and seeking and receiving informed consent from subjects. GCP requirements encompass both ethical and data integrity standards for clinical studies. The FDA’s regulations are intended to help ensure the protection of human subjects enrolled in non-IND foreign clinical studies, as well as the quality and integrity of the resulting data. The regulations further help ensure that non-IND foreign studies are conducted in a manner comparable to that required for IND studies.

The acceptance by the FDA of trial data from clinical trials conducted outside the U.S. in support of U.S. approval may be subject to certain conditions or may not be accepted at all. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the sole basis for marketing approval in the U.S., the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone, unless (i) the data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice; (ii) the trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence and pursuant to GCP regulations; and (iii) the data may be considered valid without the need for an on-site inspection by the FDA, or if the FDA considers such inspection to be necessary, the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means.

In addition, even where the foreign trial data are not intended to serve as the sole basis for approval, the FDA will not accept the data as support for an application for marketing approval, unless the trial is well-designed and well-conducted in accordance with GCP requirements, and the FDA is able to validate the data from the trial through an onsite inspection if deemed necessary. Many foreign regulatory authorities have similar approval requirements. In addition, such foreign trials are subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted.

Reporting Clinical Trial Results

Sponsors of clinical trials of certain FDA-regulated products, including prescription drugs, are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information on a public registry (clinicaltrials.gov) maintained by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). In particular, information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators, and other aspects of the clinical trial is made public as part of the registration of the clinical trial. Although sponsors are also obligated to disclose the results of their clinical trials after completion, disclosure of the results can be delayed in some cases for up to two years after the date of completion of the trial. The NIH’s Final Rule on registration and reporting requirements for clinical trials became effective in 2017.

The Public Health Service Act grants the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to issue a notice of noncompliance to a responsible party for failure to submit clinical trial information as required. The responsible party, however, is allowed 30 days to correct the noncompliance and submit the required information. The FDA regularly issues notices of non-compliance, thereby signaling the government’s willingness to enforce these requirements against non-compliant clinical trial sponsors. While these notices of non-compliance did not result in civil monetary penalties, the failure to submit clinical trial information to clinicaltrials.gov is a prohibited act under the FDCA with violations subject to potential civil monetary penalties of up to $10,000 for each day the violation continues. Violations may also result in injunctions and/or criminal prosecution or disqualification from federal grants.

Interactions with the FDA During the Clinical Development Program

Following the clearance of an IND and the commencement of clinical trials, the sponsor will continue to have interactions with the FDA. Progress reports detailing the results of clinical trials must be submitted annually within 60 days of the anniversary dates that the IND went into effect and more frequently if serious adverse events occur. These reports must include a development safety update report. In addition, IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA for any of the following: serious and unexpected suspected adverse reactions; findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk in humans exposed to the product; and any clinically important increase in the occurrence of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure.

In addition, sponsors are given opportunities to meet with the FDA at certain points in the clinical development program. Specifically, sponsors may meet with the FDA prior to the submission of an IND (pre-IND meeting), at the end of Phase 2 clinical trial (EOP2 meeting) and before an NDA is submitted (pre-NDA meeting). Meetings at other times may also be requested. There are five types of meetings that occur between sponsors and the FDA. Type A meetings are those that are necessary for an otherwise stalled product development program to proceed or to address an important safety issue. Type B meetings include pre-IND and pre-NDA meetings as well as end of phase meetings such as EOP2 meetings. A Type C meeting is any meeting other than a Type A or Type B meeting regarding the development and review of a product, including for example meetings to facilitate early consultations on the use of a biomarker as a new surrogate endpoint that has never been previously used as the primary basis for product approval in the proposed context of use. A type D meeting is focused on a narrow set of issues (should be limited to no more than two focused topics) and should not require input from more than three disciplines or divisions. Finally, INTERACT meetings are intended for novel products and development programs that present unique challenges in the early development of an investigational product.

Table of Contents

These meetings provide an opportunity for the sponsor to share information about the data gathered to date with the FDA and for the FDA to provide advice on the next phase of development. The FDA has indicated that its responses, as conveyed in meeting minutes and advice letters, only constitute mere recommendations and/or advice made to a sponsor and, as such, sponsors are not bound by such recommendations and/or advice. Nonetheless, from a practical perspective, a sponsor’s failure to follow the FDA’s recommendations for design of a clinical program may put the program at significant risk of failure.

Manufacturing and Other Regulatory Requirements

Concurrently with clinical trials, sponsors usually complete additional animal safety studies, develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the product candidate, and finalize a process for manufacturing commercial quantities of the product candidate in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other criteria, the sponsor must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, and purity of the finished product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

Specifically, the FDA’s regulations require that pharmaceutical products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with cGMPs. The cGMP regulations include requirements relating to organization of personnel, buildings and facilities, equipment, control of components and product containers and closures, production and process controls, packaging and labeling controls, holding and distribution, laboratory controls, records and reports, and returned or salvaged products. Manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved pharmaceuticals are required to register their establishments with the FDA and some state agencies, and they are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA for compliance with cGMPs and other requirements. The PREVENT Pandemics Act, which was enacted in December 2022, clarifies that foreign drug manufacturing establishments are subject to registration and listing requirements even if a drug undergoes further manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing at a separate establishment outside the U.S. prior to being imported or offered for import into the U.S.

Inspections must follow a “risk-based schedule” that may result in certain establishments being inspected more frequently. Manufacturers may also have to provide, on request, electronic or physical records regarding their establishments. Delaying, denying, limiting, or refusing inspection by the FDA may lead to a product being deemed to be adulterated. Changes to the manufacturing process, specifications or container closure system for an approved product are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval before being implemented. The FDA’s regulations also require, among other things, the investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and the imposition of reporting and documentation requirements upon the sponsor and any third-party manufacturers involved in producing the approved product. Both domestic and foreign manufacturing establishments must register and provide additional information to the FDA upon their initial participation in the manufacturing process. Any product manufactured by or imported from a facility that has not registered, whether foreign or domestic, is deemed misbranded under the FDCA.

Pediatric Studies

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA), applications and certain types of supplements to applications must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the product 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 sponsor must submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan (PSP) within 60 days of an end-of-Phase 2 meeting or as may be agreed between the sponsor and the FDA. Those plans must contain an outline of the proposed pediatric study or studies 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 sponsor and the FDA must reach agreement on a final plan. A sponsor can submit 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 nonclinical studies, early phase clinical trials, and/or other clinical development programs.

For investigational products intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, the FDA must, upon the request of a sponsor, meet to discuss preparation of the initial PSP or to discuss deferral or waiver of pediatric assessments. In addition, the FDA will meet early in the development process to discuss pediatric study plans with sponsors, and the FDA must meet with sponsors by no later than the end-of-Phase 1 meeting for serious or life-threatening diseases and by no later than 90 days after the FDA’s receipt of the study plan.

The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the sponsor, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements. A deferral may be granted for several reasons, including a finding that the product or therapeutic candidate is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric trials are complete or that additional safety or effectiveness data needs to be collected before the pediatric trials begin. The law now requires the FDA to send a PREA Non-Compliance letter to sponsors who have failed to submit their pediatric assessments required under PREA, have failed to seek or obtain a deferral or deferral extension, or have failed to request approval for a required pediatric formulation. It further requires the FDA to publicly post the PREA Non-Compliance letter and sponsor’s response. Unless otherwise required by regulation, the pediatric data requirements do not apply to products with orphan drug designation, although the

Table of Contents

FDA has recently taken steps to limit what it considers abuse of this statutory exemption in PREA by announcing that it does not intend to grant any additional orphan drug designations for rare pediatric subpopulations of what is otherwise a common disease. The FDA also maintains a list of diseases that are exempt from PREA requirements due to low prevalence of disease in the pediatric population. In May 2023, the FDA issued draft guidance that further describes the pediatric study requirements under PREA.

Expedited Review Programs

For certain drug products, the FDA is authorized to expedite the review and approval of applications in several ways. None of these expedited programs change the standards for approval, but they may help expedite the development and approval process governing product candidates.

•

Fast Track designation. Candidate products are eligible for Fast Track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Fast Track designation applies to the combination of the product candidate and the specific indication for which it is being studied. In addition to other benefits, such as the ability to have greater interactions with the FDA, the FDA may initiate review of sections of a Fast Track application before the application is complete, a process known as rolling review.

•

Breakthrough therapy designation. To qualify for the breakthrough therapy program, product candidates must be intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence must indicate that such product candidates may demonstrate substantial improvement on one or more clinically significant endpoints over existing therapies. The FDA will seek to ensure the sponsor of a breakthrough therapy product candidate receives intensive guidance on an efficient development program, intensive involvement of senior managers and experienced staff on a proactive, collaborative and cross-disciplinary review and rolling review.

•

Priority review. A product candidate is eligible for priority review if it treats a serious condition and, if approved, it would be a significant improvement in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention compared to marketed products. The FDA aims to complete its review of priority review applications within six months as opposed to 10 months for standard review.

•

Accelerated approval. Drug products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may receive accelerated approval. Accelerated approval means that a product candidate may be approved on the basis of adequate and well controlled clinical trials establishing that the product candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict a clinical benefit, or on the basis of an effect on a clinical endpoint other than survival or irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, and prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug product candidate receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well controlled post-marketing clinical trials. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials.

In December 2022, Congress modified certain provisions governing accelerated approval of drug products. Specifically, the new legislation authorized the FDA to require a sponsor to have its confirmatory clinical trial underway before accelerated approval is awarded and to submit progress reports on its post-approval studies to FDA every six months until the study is completed. Moreover, FDORA established expedited procedures authorizing the FDA to withdraw an accelerated approval if certain conditions are met, including where a required confirmatory study fails to verify and describe the predicted clinical benefit or where evidence demonstrates the product is not shown to be safe or effective under the conditions of use. The FDA may also use such procedures to withdraw an accelerated approval if a sponsor fails to conduct any required post-approval trial of the product with due diligence, including with respect to “conditions specified by the Secretary.” The new procedures include the provision of due notice and an explanation for a proposed withdrawal, and opportunities for a meeting with the Commissioner of the FDA or the Commissioner’s designee and a written appeal, among other things.

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

Table of Contents

•

Regenerative advanced therapy. With passage of the Cures Act in December 2016, Congress authorized the FDA to accelerate review and approval of products designated as regenerative advanced therapies. A product is eligible for this designation if it is a regenerative medicine therapy that is intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product candidate has the potential to address unmet medical needs for such disease or condition. The benefits of a regenerative advanced therapy designation include early interactions with the FDA to expedite development and review, benefits available to breakthrough therapies, potential eligibility for priority review, and accelerated approval based on surrogate or intermediate endpoints.

Section 505(b)(2) NDAs

NDAs for most new drug products are based on two full clinical studies which must contain substantial evidence of the safety and efficacy of the proposed new product for the proposed use. These applications are submitted under Section 505(b)(1) of the FDCA. The FDA is, however, authorized to approve an alternative type of NDA under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA. This type of application allows the sponsor to rely, in part, on the FDA’s previous findings of safety and efficacy for a similar product, or published literature. Specifically, Section 505(b)(2) applies to NDAs for a drug for which the investigations made to show whether or not the drug is safe for use and effective in use and relied upon by the sponsor for approval of the application “were not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference or use from the person by or for whom the investigations were conducted.”

Section 505(b)(2) thus authorizes the FDA to approve an NDA based on safety and effectiveness data that were not developed by the applicant. NDAs filed under Section 505(b)(2) may provide an alternate and potentially more expeditious pathway to FDA approval for new or improved formulations or new uses of previously approved products. If the 505(b)(2) applicant can establish that reliance on the FDA’s previous approval is scientifically appropriate, the applicant may eliminate the need to conduct certain preclinical or clinical studies of the new product. The FDA may also require companies to perform additional studies or measurements to support the change from the approved product. The FDA may then approve the new drug candidate for all or some of the label indications for which the referenced product has been approved as well as for any new indication sought by the Section 505(b)(2) applicant.

Submission and Filing of NDAs

Assuming successful completion of the required clinical testing, the results of the preclinical studies and clinical trials, along with information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls, safety updates, patent information, abuse information, and proposed labeling, are submitted to the FDA as part of an application requesting approval to market the product candidate for one or more indications. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and efficacy of a product’s use or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and efficacy of a drug product to the satisfaction of the FDA. The fee required for the submission and review of an application under PDUFA is substantial (for example, for fiscal year 2025, this application fee is $4,310,002), and the sponsor of an approved application is also subject to an annual program fee, currently set at $403,889 per eligible prescription product. These fees are typically adjusted annually, and exemptions and waivers may be available under certain circumstances, such as where a waiver is necessary to protect the public health, where the fee would present a significant barrier to innovation, or where the sponsor is a small business submitting its first human therapeutic application for review.

The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all applications within 60 days of receipt and must inform the sponsor at that time or before whether an application is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. In pertinent part, the FDA’s regulations state that an application “shall not be considered as filed until all pertinent information and data have been received” by the FDA. In the event that the FDA determines that an application does not satisfy this standard, it will issue a Refuse to File (RTF) determination to the applicant. Typically, an RTF will be based on administrative incompleteness, such as clear omission of information or sections of required information; scientific incompleteness, such as omission of critical data, information, or analyses needed to evaluate safety and efficacy or provide adequate directions for use; or inadequate content, presentation, or organization of information such that substantive and meaningful review is precluded. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an application for filing. In this event, the application must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application is also subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing.

After the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the application. The FDA reviews the application to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe and effective for its intended use, whether it has an acceptable purity profile, and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under PDUFA, the FDA has 10 months from the filing date in which to complete its initial review of a standard application that is a new molecular entity, and six months from the filing date for an application with “priority review.” The review process may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider new information or in the case of a clarification provided by the sponsor to address an outstanding deficiency identified by the FDA following the original submission. Despite these review goals, it is not uncommon for FDA review of an application to extend beyond the PDUFA goal date.

In connection with its review of an application, the FDA will typically submit information requests to the sponsor and set deadlines for responses thereto. The FDA will also conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facilities for the new product to

Table of Contents

determine whether the manufacturing processes and facilities comply with cGMPs. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and are adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. The FDA also may inspect the sponsor and one or more clinical trial sites to assure compliance with IND and GCP requirements and the integrity of the clinical data submitted to the FDA. To ensure cGMP and GCP compliance by its employees and third-party contractors, a sponsor may incur significant expenditure of time, money, and effort in the areas of training, record keeping, production, and quality control.

Moreover, the FDA will review a sponsor’s financial relationship with the principal investigators who conducted the clinical trials in support of the NDA. That is because, under certain circumstances, principal investigators at a clinical trial site may also serve as scientific advisors or consultants to a sponsor and receive compensation in connection with such services. Depending on the level of that compensation and any other financial interest a principal investigator may have in a sponsor, the sponsor may be required to report these relationships to the FDA. The FDA will then evaluate that financial relationship and determine whether it creates a conflict of interest or otherwise affects the interpretation of the trial or the integrity of the data generated at the principal investigator’s clinical trial site. If so, the FDA may exclude data from the clinical trial site in connection with its determination of safety and efficacy of the investigational product.

Additionally, the FDA may refer an application, including applications for novel product candidates which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy, to an advisory committee for review, evaluation, and recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. Typically, an advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates, and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations when making final decisions on approval. Data from clinical trials are not always conclusive, and the FDA or its advisory committee may interpret data differently than the sponsor interprets the same data. The FDA may also re-analyze the clinical trial data, which could result in extensive discussions between the FDA and the sponsor during the review process.

The FDA also may require submission of a REMS if it determines that a REMS is necessary to ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh its risks and to assure the safe use of the product. The REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans, assessment plans, and/or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries, or other risk minimization tools. The FDA determines the requirement for a REMS, as well as the specific REMS provisions, on a case-by-case basis. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the application must submit a proposed REMS and the FDA will not approve the application without a REMS.

Decisions on NDAs

The FDA reviews an application to determine, among other things, whether the product is safe and whether it is effective for its intended use(s), with the latter determination being made on the basis of substantial evidence. The term “substantial evidence” is defined under the FDCA as “evidence consisting of adequate and well-controlled investigations, including clinical investigations, by experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the effectiveness of the product involved, on the basis of which it could fairly and responsibly be concluded by such experts that the product will have the effect it purports or is represented to have under the conditions of use prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling or proposed labeling thereof.”

The FDA has interpreted this evidentiary standard to require at least two adequate and well-controlled clinical investigations to establish effectiveness of a new product. Under certain circumstances, however, the FDA has indicated that a single trial with certain characteristics and additional information may satisfy this standard. This approach was subsequently endorsed by Congress in 1998 with legislation providing, in pertinent part, that if the FDA determines, “based on relevant science, that data from one adequate and well-controlled clinical investigation and confirmatory evidence (obtained prior to or after such investigation) are sufficient to establish effectiveness, FDA may consider such data and evidence to constitute substantial evidence.” This modification to the law recognized the potential for the FDA to find that one adequate and well controlled clinical investigation with confirmatory evidence, including supportive data outside of a controlled trial, is sufficient to establish effectiveness. In December 2019, the FDA issued draft guidance further explaining the studies that are needed to establish substantial evidence of effectiveness. Although the FDA has not yet finalized that guidance, it did issue additional draft guidance in September 2023 that outlines considerations for relying on confirmatory evidence in lieu of a second clinical study.

After evaluating the application and all related information, including the advisory committee recommendations, if any, and inspection reports of manufacturing facilities and clinical trial sites, the FDA will issue either a Complete Response Letter (CRL) or an approval letter. To reach this determination, the FDA must determine that the drug is effective and that its expected benefits outweigh its potential risks to patients. This “benefit-risk” assessment is informed by the extensive body of evidence about the product’s safety and efficacy in the NDA. This assessment is also informed by other factors, including: the severity of the underlying condition and how well patients’ medical needs are addressed by currently available therapies; uncertainty about how the premarket clinical trial evidence will extrapolate to real-world use of the product in the post-market setting; and whether risk management tools are necessary to manage specific risks. In connection with this assessment, the FDA review team will assemble all individual reviews and other documents into an “action package,” which becomes the record for FDA review. The review team then issues a recommendation, and a senior FDA official makes a decision.

Table of Contents

A CRL indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete, and the application will not be approved in its present form. A CRL generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing or information in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. The CRL may require additional clinical or other data, additional pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial(s), and/or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, preclinical studies, or manufacturing. If a CRL is issued, the sponsor will have one year to respond to the deficiencies identified by the FDA, at which time the FDA can deem the application withdrawn or, in its discretion, grant the sponsor an additional six month extension to respond. The FDA has committed to reviewing resubmissions in response to an issued CRL in either two or six months depending on the type of information included. Even with the submission of this additional information, however, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. The FDA has taken the position that a CRL is not final agency action making the determination subject to judicial review. Sponsors may request the FDA for a formal hearing on the CRL or they may file a request for reconsideration or a request for a formal dispute resolution.

An approval letter, on the other hand, authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. That is, the approval will be limited to the conditions of use (e.g., patient population, indication) described in the FDA-approved labeling. Further, depending on the specific risk(s) to be addressed, the FDA may require that contraindications, warnings, or precautions be included in the product labeling, require that post-approval trials, including Phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further assess a product’s safety after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization or impose other conditions, including distribution and use restrictions or other risk management mechanisms under a REMS which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-marketing trials or surveillance programs. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes, and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

Under the Ensuring Innovation Act, which was signed into law in April 2021, the FDA must publish action packages summarizing its decisions to approve new drug products within 30 days of approval of such products. To date, CRLs are not publicly available documents.

Post-approval Requirements

Following approval of a new prescription product, the manufacturer, the approved product, and the product’s manufacturing locations are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, governing, among other things, monitoring and record-keeping activities, reporting of adverse experiences with the product and product problems to the FDA, product sampling and distribution, manufacturing, and promotion and advertising. Although physicians may prescribe legally available products for unapproved uses or patient populations (i.e., “off-label uses”), manufacturers may not market or promote such uses. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability.

We will need to carefully navigate the FDA’s various regulations, guidance and policies, along with recently enacted legislation, to ensure compliance with restrictions governing promotion of our products, if approved. In September 2021, the FDA published final regulations which describe the types of evidence that the FDA will consider in determining the intended use of a drug or biologic. Moreover, with passage of the Pre-Approval Information Exchange Act in December 2022, sponsors of products that have not been approved may proactively communicate to payors certain information about products in development to help expedite patient access upon product approval. In addition, in January 2025, the FDA published final guidance outlining its policies governing the distribution of scientific information to healthcare providers about unapproved uses of approved products. The final guidance calls for such communications to be truthful, non-misleading and scientifically sound and to include all information necessary for healthcare providers to interpret the strengths and weaknesses and validity and utility of the information about the unapproved use of the approved product. If a company engages in such communications consistent with the guidance’s recommendations, the FDA indicated that it will not treat such communications as evidence of unlawful promotion of a new intended use for the approved product. While this guidance only applies to communications about unapproved uses of approved products, it may be helpful in understanding the FDA’s approach to communications about unapproved products.

If a company is found to have promoted off-label uses, it may become subject to administrative and judicial enforcement by the FDA, the Department of Justice, or the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), as well as state authorities. This could subject a company to a range of penalties that could have a significant commercial impact, including civil and criminal fines and agreements that materially restrict the manner in which a company promotes or distributes products, as well as adverse public relations and reputational harm. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion, and has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed.

Further, if there are any modifications to the product, including changes in indications, labeling, or manufacturing processes or facilities, the sponsor may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new application or supplement, which may require the sponsor to develop additional data or conduct additional preclinical studies and clinical trials. Securing FDA approval for new indications is similar to the process for approval of the original indication and requires, among other things, submitting data from

Table of Contents

adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the product’s safety and efficacy in the new indication. Even if such trials are conducted, the FDA may not approve any expansion of the labeled indications for use in a timely fashion, or at all. There also are continuing, annual user fee requirements that are now assessed as program fees for certain products.

In addition, the FDA may withdraw the 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 mandatory revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information, imposition of a post-market clinical trials requirement to assess new safety risks, or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program.

Other potential consequences include, among other things:

•

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

•

safety alerts, Dear Healthcare Provider letters, press releases, or other communications containing warnings or other safety information about a product;

•

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

•

fines, warning letters, untitled letters, or other enforcement-related letters or clinical holds on post-approval clinical trials;

•

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

•

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

•

injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties; and

•

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

In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to a variety of federal and state laws, the most recent of which is still in the process of being phased into the U.S. supply chain and regulatory framework. The Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA) was the first federal law to set minimum standards for the registration and regulation of drug distributors by the states and to regulate the distribution of drug samples. Today, both the PDMA and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution. In November 2013, the federal Drug Supply Chain Security Act became effective in the U.S., mandating an industry-wide, electronic, interoperable system to trace prescription drugs through the pharmaceutical distribution supply chain with a ten-year phase-in process. Manufacturers were required by November 2023 to have such systems and processes. So as not to disrupt supply chains, the FDA has granted certain exemptions from enhanced drug distribution security requirements for eligible trading partners for particular periods of time.

Generic Drugs and Regulatory Exclusivity

In 1984, with passage of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, Congress established an abbreviated regulatory scheme authorizing the FDA to approve generic drugs that are shown to contain the same active ingredients as, and to be bioequivalent to, drugs previously approved by the FDA pursuant to NDAs, and also enacted Section 505(b)(2). To obtain approval of a generic drug, a sponsor must submit an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) to the FDA. In support of such applications, a generic manufacturer may rely on the preclinical and clinical testing conducted for a drug product previously approved under an NDA, known as the reference listed drug (RLD).

Specifically, in order for an ANDA to be approved, the FDA must find that the generic version is identical to the RLD with respect to the active ingredients, the route of administration, the dosage form, the strength of the drug, and the conditions of use of the drug. At the same time, the FDA must also determine that the generic drug is “bioequivalent” to the innovator drug. Under the statute, a generic drug is bioequivalent to a RLD if “the rate and extent of absorption of the drug do not show a significant difference from the rate and extent of absorption of the listed drug.” Upon approval of an ANDA, the FDA indicates whether the generic product is “therapeutically equivalent” to the RLD in its publication “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” also referred to as the “Orange Book.” Physicians and pharmacists consider a therapeutic equivalent generic drug to be fully substitutable for the RLD.

Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, the FDA may not approve an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application until any applicable period of regulatory exclusivity for the RLD has expired. The FDCA provides a period of five years of regulatory exclusivity for a new drug containing a new chemical entity (NCE). For the purposes of this provision, the FDA has consistently taken the position that an NCE is a drug that contains no active moiety that has previously been approved by the FDA in any other NDA. This interpretation was confirmed with enactment of the Ensuring Innovation Act in April 2021. An active moiety is the molecule or ion responsible for the physiological or pharmacological action of the drug substance. In cases where such NCE exclusivity has been granted, a generic or follow-on drug

Table of Contents

application may not be filed with the FDA until the expiration of five years unless the submission is accompanied by a Paragraph IV certification, in which case the sponsor may submit its application four years following the original product approval.

The FDCA also provides for a period of three years of regulatory exclusivity if the NDA includes reports of one or more new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies, that were conducted by or for the sponsor and are essential to the approval of the application. This three-year exclusivity period often protects changes to a previously approved drug product, such as new indications, dosage forms, route of administration or combination of ingredients. Three-year regulatory exclusivity would be available for a drug product that contains a previously approved active moiety, provided the statutory requirement for a new clinical investigation is satisfied. Unlike five-year NCE exclusivity, an award of three-year exclusivity does not block the FDA from accepting ANDAs or 505(b)(2) NDAs seeking approval for generic versions of the drug as of the date of approval of the original drug product; rather, this three-year exclusivity covers only the conditions of use associated with the new clinical investigations and, as a general matter, does not prohibit the FDA from approving follow-on applications for drugs containing the original active ingredient.

Five-year and three-year regulatory exclusivity also will not delay the submission or approval of a traditional NDA filed under Section 505(b)(1) of the FDCA; however, a sponsor submitting a traditional NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

As part of the submission of an NDA or certain supplemental applications, NDA sponsors are required to list with the FDA each patent with claims that cover the sponsor’s product or an approved method of using the product. Upon approval of a new drug, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is then published in the Orange Book. The FDA’s regulations governing patent listings were largely codified into law with enactment of the Orange Book Modernization Act in January 2021. When an ANDA applicant files its application with the FDA, the applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the reference product in the Orange Book. Specifically, the ANDA applicant must certify that: (i) the required patent information has not been filed; (ii) the listed patent has expired; (iii) the listed patent has not expired, but will expire on a particular date and approval is sought after patent expiration; or (iv) the listed patent is invalid or will not be infringed by the new product. Moreover, to the extent that the Section 505(b)(2) NDA applicant is relying on studies conducted for an already approved product, the applicant also is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the NDA-approved product in the Orange Book to the same extent that an ANDA applicant would.

If the generic drug or follow-on drug applicant does not challenge the innovator’s listed patents, the FDA will not approve the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired. A certification that the new generic product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents or that such patents are invalid or unenforceable is called a Paragraph IV certification. If the ANDA applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA owner and patent holders once the ANDA has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA owner and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days after the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA until the earliest of 30 months after the receipt of the Paragraph IV notice, expiration of the patent and a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA applicant.

Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity

Orphan drug designation in the U.S. is designed to encourage sponsors to develop products intended for treatment of rare diseases or conditions. In the U.S., a rare disease or condition is statutorily defined as a condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the U.S. or that affects more than 200,000 individuals in the U.S. and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available the product for the disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product in the U.S.

NUVL US Equity

NUVL · 10-K · period ended 2025-12-31

Item 1. Business

NUVL US Equity☆

NUVL · 10-K · period ended 2025-12-31

Item 1. Business

NUVL US Equity