UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020

For the transition period from to

Commission File Number: 001-36829

Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

9 Cedarbrook DriveCranbury, NJ 08512

(Address of Principal Executive Offices) (Zip Code)

(646) 440-9100

(Registrant’s Telephone Number, Including Area Code)

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

Title of each class Name of each exchange on which registered

Common Stock, $0.01 par value RCKT Nasdaq Global Market

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

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

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

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

The aggregate market value of the common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of June 30, 2020 (the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter) was approximately $734.6 million, based upon the closing price on the Nasdaq Global Market reported for such date.

As of February 22, 2021, there were 61,778,289 shares of common stock, $0.01 par value per share, outstanding.

Documents Incorporated by Reference

Part III of this annual report on Form 10-K incorporates by reference information (to the extent specific sections are referred to herein) from the registrant’s definitive proxy statement for its 2021 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the “Proxy Statement”). The Proxy Statement will be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Table of Contents

PART I. Page

Item 1. Business 5

Item 1A. Risk Factors 29

Item 1B. Unresolved SEC Comments 57

Item 2. Properties 57

Item 3. Legal Proceedings 58

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures 58

PART II.

Item 6. Selected Financial Data 59

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk 68

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data 68

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures 68

Item 9B. Other Information 69

PART III

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance 69

Item 11. Executive Compensation 69

Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services 69

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statements and Schedules 70

Signatures 73

Table of Contents

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K (“Annual Report”) contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties, as well as assumptions that, if they never materialize or prove incorrect, could cause our results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. We make such forward-looking statements pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and other federal securities laws. All statements other than statements of historical facts contained in this Annual Report are forward-looking statements. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “contemplate,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “seek,” “should,” “target,” “will,” “would,” or the negative of these words or other comparable terminology. These forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements about:

• our estimates regarding our capital requirements; and

We caution you that the foregoing list may not contain all of the forward-looking statements made in this Annual Report.

Any forward-looking statements in this Annual Report reflect our current views with respect to future events or to our future financial performance and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. Factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from current expectations include, among other things, those listed under Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors and elsewhere in this Annual Report. Given these uncertainties, you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Except as required by law, we assume no obligation to update or revise these forward-looking statements for any reason, even if new information becomes available in the future.

This Annual Report also contains estimates, projections and other information concerning our industry, our business, and the markets for certain diseases, including data regarding the estimated size of those markets, and the incidence and prevalence of certain medical conditions. 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 reflected in this information. Unless otherwise expressly stated, we obtained this industry, business, market and other data 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.

Table of Contents

SUMMARY OF THE MATERIAL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH OUR BUSINESS

Our business is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties that you should be aware of in evaluating our business. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Even if approved, we may not successfully commercialize our drug candidates.

The summary risk factors described above should be read together with the text of the full risk factors below and in the other information set forth in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our consolidated financial statements and the related notes, as well as in other documents that we file with the SEC. If any such risks and uncertainties actually occur, our business, prospects, financial condition, and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. The risks summarized above or described in full elsewhere in this report are not the only risks that we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us, or that we currently deem to be immaterial may also materially adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition, and results of operations.

Table of Contents

PART I

Item 1. Business

Overview

We are a clinical-stage, multi-platform biotechnology company focused on the development of first, only and best-in-class gene therapies, with direct on-target mechanism of action and clear clinical endpoints, for rare and devastating diseases. We have four clinical-stage ex vivo lentiviral vector (“LVV”). These include programs for Fanconi Anemia (“FA”), a genetic defect in the bone marrow that reduces production of blood cells or promotes the production of faulty blood cells, Leukocyte Adhesion Deficiency-I (“LAD-I”), a genetic disorder that causes the immune system to malfunction, Pyruvate Kinase Deficiency (“PKD”), a rare red blood cell autosomal recessive disorder that results in chronic non-spherocytic hemolytic anemia and Infantile Malignant Osteopetrosis (“IMO”), a genetic disorder characterized by increased bone density and bone mass secondary to impaired bone resorption. Of these, both the Phase 2 FA program and the Phase 1/2 LAD-I program are in registration-enabling studies in the United States (“U.S.”) and Europe (“EU”). In addition, in the U.S., we have a clinical stage in vivo adeno-associated virus (“AAV”) program for Danon disease, a multi-organ lysosomal-associated disorder leading to early death due to heart failure. We have global commercialization and development rights to all of these product candidates under royalty-bearing license agreements. Additional work on a gene therapy program for the less common FA subtypes C and G is ongoing.

Through our gene therapy platforms, we aim to restore normal cellular function by modifying the defective genes that cause each of the targeted disorders.

Gene Therapy Overview

Genes are composed of sequences of deoxyribonucleic acid (“DNA”), which code for proteins that perform a broad range of physiologic functions in all living organisms. Although genes are passed on from generation to generation, genetic changes, also known as mutations, can occur in this process. These changes can result in the lack of production of proteins or the production of altered proteins with reduced or abnormal function, which can in turn result in disease.

Gene therapy is a therapeutic approach in which an isolated gene sequence or segment of DNA is administered to a patient, most commonly for the purpose of treating a genetic disease that is caused by genetic mutations. Currently available therapies for many genetic diseases focus on administration of large proteins or enzymes and typically address only the symptoms of the disease. Gene therapy aims to address the disease-causing effects of absent or dysfunctional genes by delivering functional copies of the gene sequence directly into the patient’s cells, offering the potential for curing the genetic disease, rather than simply addressing symptoms.

We are using modified non-pathogenic viruses for the development of our gene therapy treatments. Viruses are particularly well suited as delivery vehicles because they are adept at penetrating cells and delivering genetic material inside a cell. In creating our viral delivery vehicles, the viral (pathogenic) genes are removed and are replaced with a functional form of the missing or mutant gene that is the cause of the patient’s genetic disease. The functional form of a missing or mutant gene is called a therapeutic gene, or the “transgene.” The process of inserting the transgene is called “transduction.” Once a virus is modified by replacement of the viral genes with a transgene, the modified virus is called a “viral vector.” The viral vector delivers the transgene into the targeted tissue or organ (such as the cells inside a patient’s bone marrow). We have two types of viral vectors in development, LVV and AAV. We believe that our LVV and AAV-based programs have the potential to offer a significant therapeutic benefit to patients that is durable (long-lasting).

The gene therapies can be delivered either (1) ex vivo (outside the body), in which case the patient’s cells are extracted and the vector is delivered to these cells in a controlled, safe laboratory setting, with the modified cells then being reinserted into the patient, or (2) in vivo (inside the body), in which case the vector is injected directly into the patient, either intravenously (“IV”) or directly into a specific tissue at a targeted site, with the aim of the vector delivering the transgene to the targeted cells.

We believe that scientific advances, clinical progress, and the greater regulatory acceptance of gene therapy have created a promising environment to advance gene therapy products as these products are being designed to restore cell function and improve clinical outcomes, which in many cases include prevention of death at an early age. The FDA approval of several gene therapies in recent years indicates that there is a regulatory pathway forward for gene therapy products.

Essential Terminology.

Set forth below is an abbreviated index of certain key terms and optimal ranges of values used in the discussion of LVV and AAV gene therapies.

Table of Contents

Term Definition Optimal Ranges

LVV Therapy (hematopoietic disorders)

AAV Therapy

Pipeline Overview

The chart below shows the current phases of development of Rocket’s programs and product candidates for both LVV and AAV programs:

Descriptions of these conditions and the Rocket programs for each is set forth below.

LVV Programs. Rocket’s LVV-based programs utilize third-generation, self-inactivating lentiviral vectors to target selected rarediseases. Currently, Rocket is developing LVV programs to treat FA, LAD-I, PKD, and IMO.

AAV Program.

Overview of Danon Disease

Danon disease is a multi-organ lysosomal-associated disorder leading to early death due to heart failure. Danon disease is caused by mutations in the gene encoding lysosome-associated membrane protein 2 (“LAMP-2”), a mediator of autophagy. This mutation results in the accumulation of autophagic vacuoles, predominantly in cardiac and skeletal muscle. Male patients often require heart transplantation and typically die in their teens or twenties from progressive heart failure. Along with severe cardiomyopathy, other Danon disease symptoms can include skeletal muscle weakness, liver disease, and intellectual impairment. There are no specific therapies available for the treatment of Danon disease. RP-A501 is in clinical trials as an in vivo therapy for Danon disease, which is estimated to have a prevalence of 15,000 to 30,000 patients in the U.S. and the EU, however new market research is being performed and the prevalence of patients may be updated in the future.

Table of Contents

Rationale for Gene Therapy in FA

Danon disease is an autosomal dominant, rare inherited disorder characterized by progressive cardiomyopathy which is almost universally fatal in males even in settings where cardiac transplantation is available. Danon disease predominantly affects males early in life and is characterized by absence of LAMP2B expression in the heart and other tissues. Pre-clinical models of Danon have demonstrated that AAV-mediated transduction of the heart results in reconstitution of LAMP2B expression and improvement in cardiac function.

The rAAV9-based gene product, RP-A501 is potentially corrective of Danon Disease based on several factors. (1) Danon females who have a 30-60% expression level of LAMP2B compared to normal hearts, have a median lifespan of greater than 40 years of age, which is significantly greater than the median age of death of 18 years old in males. (2) Tropism of the AAV9 vector for cardiomyocytes and the ability to efficiently and stably transduce cardiac cells. This is clearly demonstrated in both pre-clinical models as well as the durable (9-12 months) cardiac expression of LAMP2B in the ongoing Phase 1b clinical trial. (3) Mammalian cardiomyocytes are an extremely stable cell population with limited reproductive or cell-cycle-entry capacity beyond the perinatal period, implying that sufficient AAV-mediated LAMP2B transduction may enable lifelong reversal of the Danon disease phenotype.

We currently have one adeno-associated viral vector-based program targeting Danon Disease, RP-A501, in a Phase 1 clinical trial. University of California San Diego Health was the initial and lead center for our Phase 1 clinical trial, and Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia joined UCSD as a trial site for the higher dose cohort. The non-randomized, open-label Phase 1 trial is designed to enroll both pediatric and young adult male patients in escalating dose cohorts.

As of December 31, 2020, we have treated five patients in the RP-A501 Phase 1 clinical trial and completed the first cohort of the study evaluating an initial low-dose in male patients age 15 or greater. The preliminary data announced in December 2020 for the low dose cohort included safety and clinical activity results from the three patients treated with the low dose of 6.7×1013 genome copies (gc)/kilogram (kg) and early safety information from the two patients treated with the higher dose of 1.1×1014 gc/kg as of the cutoff date of November 2020.

In the three patients treated in the low dose cohort, RP-A501 showed manageable safety results. No unexpected and serious drug product-related adverse events or severe adverse events were observed. The most common adverse events were mild and were related to elevated transaminases post treatment. Elevation in transaminases was observed in all three low-dose patients and returned to baseline within the first one to two months post-treatment. There was also a transient and reversible decline in platelets observed in these three patients. These changes were largely responsive to corticosteroids and other immunosuppressive therapies. All patients were given oral steroids to prevent or minimize potential immune-related events.

At the higher dose administered (1.1×1014 gc/kg), additional immunosuppressive therapies were stipulated and administered to mitigate the immune response associated with RP-A501. One of the two treated patients, who received the higher absolute AAV9 dose and had some degree of pre-existing anti-AAV9 immunity, experienced a non-persistent, immune-related event that was classified as a drug product-related serious adverse event. This was believed to be likely due to complement activation, resulting in reversible thrombocytopenia and acute kidney injury requiring eculizumab and transient hemodialysis. This patient returned to baseline within three weeks and regained normal kidney function.

From the perspective of gene expression results, all three low dose patients demonstrated evidence of cardiac LAMP2B expression by Western blot and/or immunohistochemistry. In two of the three patients in the low dose cohort who had closely monitored compliance with the immunosuppressive regimen, high levels of cardiac LAMP2B expression were observed along with clinical biomarker improvements. In cardiac biopsies of the low dose patients, LAMP2B gene expression was observed in 67.8% of cells compared to normal as determined by immunohistochemistry at 9 months in one patient, and at 92.4% of cells compared to normal at month 12 in the other patient. In this latter patient, Western blot assessment showed 61% of normal LAMP2B protein expression at month 9. The 12-month Western blot data was still pending for all three patients as of the data cutoff.

The first patient in the low dose cohort was not as closely monitored for compliance with the immunosuppressive regimen as the other two patients. Although we did observe evidence of cardiac LAMP2B expression of approximately 15% of cells compared to normal as determined by immunohistochemistry at 12 months in this patient, we believe that such expression was likely limited by inconsistent compliance with the immunosuppressive regimen, as evidenced by transient increases in transaminase levels approximately one month after treatment and a lack of adverse events frequently associated with the immunosuppressive regimen. Additionally, in this patient, Western blot assessment showed 17.9% of normal LAMP2B protein expression at month 6.

At least two of the three low dose patients demonstrated key clinical biomarker improvements consistent with improved cardiac function. Brain natriuretic peptide, a key marker of heart failure, improved in all three patients, including by greater than 50% in the two patients with closely monitored immunosuppressive regimen compliance. Additionally, creatine kinase myocardial band either improved or stabilized in these two patients. For the patient with the potential inconsistent immunosuppressive regimen compliance, the creatine kinase myocardial band was higher than at baseline at month 12. Notably, all three patients showed visible improvements in autophagic vacuoles, a hallmark of Danon disease pathology, as assessed by electron microscopy of cardiac tissue via endomyocardial biopsy. Additionally, two of the three low dose patients with closely monitored immunosuppressive regimen compliance demonstrated improvement in cardiac output as measured by invasive hemodynamics, including one patient who showed a 1.62-fold improvement in cardiac output at month 12, and one patient who showed a 1.35-fold improvement at month 9. For the patient with the apparent inconsistent immunosuppressive regimen compliance, the cardiac output was lower at month 12 than at baseline.

Table of Contents

We expect to announce updated data from our open-label Phase 1 trial of RP-A501 in the second half of 2021.

Fanconi Anemia Complementation Group A (FANCA):

Fanconi Anemia Overview

FA, a rare and life-threatening DNA-repair disorder, generally arises from a mutation in a single FA gene. An estimated 60 to 70% of cases arise from mutations in the Fanconi-A (“FANCA”) gene, which is the focus of our program. FA results in bone marrow failure, developmental abnormalities, myeloid leukemia and other malignancies, often during the early years and decades of life. Bone marrow aplasia, which is bone marrow that no longer produces any or very few red and white blood cells and platelets leading to infections and bleeding, is the most frequent cause of early morbidity and mortality in FA, with a median onset before 10 years of age. Leukemia is the next most common cause of mortality, ultimately occurring in about 20% of patients later in life. Solid organ malignancies, such as head and neck cancers, can also occur, although at lower rates during the first two to three decades of life.

Although improvements in allogeneic (donor-mediated) hematopoietic stem cell transplant (“HSCT”), currently the most frequently utilized therapy for FA, have resulted in more frequent hematologic correction of the disorder, HSCT is associated with both acute and long-term risks, including transplant-related mortality, graft versus host disease (“GVHD”), a sometimes fatal side effect of allogeneic transplant characterized by painful ulcers in the GI tract, liver toxicity and skin rashes, as well as increased risk of subsequent cancers. Our gene therapy program in FA is designed to enable a minimally toxic hematologic correction using a patient’s own stem cells during the early years of life. We believe that the development of a broadly applicable autologous gene therapy can be transformative for these patients.

Current Therapy

Allogeneic HSCT may be curative for the hematologic manifestations of FA and is currently considered a standard-of-care in FA. However, HSCT is limited in that not all patients have a suitable donor and there is associated short term mortality and potential for acute and chronic GVHD with HSCT, especially in patients who do not receive an allograft from a sibling-human leukocyte antigen (“HLA”)-matched donor. 100-day mortality following allogeneic HSCT continues to be in the 10 to 15% range due to infection, graft failure and other complications. In a European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplant 2013 publication, a retrospective analysis detailed results from 795 FA patients receiving HSCT from 1972 to 2010 in which Grade 2-4 Acute GVHD was reported in 19 to 36% of patients and Chronic GVHD was identified in 16 to 20% of patients.

HSCT likely increases the already high risk of subsequent solid tumor malignancies for patients with FA, most notably squamous carcinoma of the head and neck (“SCCHN”). Based on the findings in one series of data, HSCT was associated with a 4-fold increase in SCCHN risk relative to FA patients who did not receive a transplant, with cancers developing at an earlier age. In another more recent but unpublished series, patients with HSCT who developed GVHD had a 30+-fold increase in SCCHN risk.

Other therapies utilized for FA include androgens, corticosteroids and hematopoietic growth factors, although the benefits of these therapies are considered modest and transient for the majority of patients. Side effects may also be considerable. For androgens, for example, these include masculinization, short stature, hepatitis, liver adenomas and hepatocellular carcinoma.

Because of the severity of the disease and limitations with existing standards-of-care, additional, minimally-toxic therapies are urgently needed in FA, especially if these can be administered with reduced short- and long-term toxicity relative to allogeneic HSCT.

Rationale for Gene Therapy in FA

Gene therapy has been considered a compelling investigative therapeutic option in FA since the genetic basis of the disorder was characterized and has been the subject of studies in both preclinical models and in several clinical studies. In addition to the monogenic nature of each patient’s disease. We believe there are several critical factors that will help lead our gene therapy programs into the next generation of promising therapy:

Table of Contents

Rocket Clinical Study

Efforts underway at our partners have incorporated the recommendations of an international FA working group that convened November 2010 with the intent of consolidating medical and scientific findings and optimizing future gene therapy clinical study design, with programs designed to overcome FA-specific gene therapy challenges. Our partners have demonstrated the ability to successfully mobilize and harvest target numbers of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (“HSPCs”) generally acknowledged to be required for successful therapy. This has been accomplished through the selection of younger patients, and mobilization with both granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (“G-CSF”) and plerixa for drug products, which are both FDA-approved drugs that increase the number of bone marrow-derived stem cells circulating in the blood. Improvements to cell processing, such as reduced transduction time requirements, optimized transduction conditions, and modified HSPC selection processes, have also led to substantive improvements in cell recovery and in vivo VCN.

Improvements in the clinical and cell-processing components of our FA trials are expected to yield more robust and readily-identifiable disease-reversal. These improvements include selection of younger patients and identification of blood count profiles that are indicative of adequate stem cell populations capable of mobilization and engraftment in numbers sufficient for reversal of the disorder.

In contrast to the high doses of cytotoxic conditioning required for allogeneic transplant in most bone marrow disorders; our expectation is that the selective growth advantage of gene-corrected HSPCs in FA will enable treatment without conditioning agents to facilitate engraftment.

The engraftment of gene-corrected cells is likely to reduce the incidence of bone marrow failure. In addition, gene-corrected cells are likely to diminish the replicative stress in FA bone marrow, which has been increasingly implicated as a likely driver of the development or bone marrow failure or leukemia.

Each of our LVV-based programs utilize third-generation, self-inactivating lentiviral vectors to correct defects in patients’ HSCs, which are the cells found in bone marrow that are capable of generating blood cells over a patient’s lifetime. Defects in the genetic coding of HSCs can result in severe, and potentially life-threatening anemia, which is when a patient’s blood lacks enough properly functioning red blood cells to carry oxygen throughout the body. Stem cell defects can also result in severe and potentially life-threatening decreases in white blood cells resulting in susceptibility to infections, and in platelets responsible for blood clotting, which may result in severe and potentially life-threatening bleeding episodes. Patients with FA have a genetic defect that prevents the normal repair of genes and chromosomes within blood cells in the bone marrow, which frequently results in the development of acute myeloid leukemia (“AML”), a type of blood cancer, as well as bone marrow failure and congenital defects. The average lifespan of an FA patient is estimated to be 30 to 40 years. The prevalence of FA in the U.S. and EU is estimated to be approximately 4,000 patients in total. In light of the efficacy seen in non-conditioned patients, the addressable annual market opportunity is now believed to be 400 to 500 patients collectively in the U.S. and EU.

We currently have one ex-vivo LVV-based program targeting FA, RP-L102. RP-L102 is our lead lentiviral vector-based program that we in-licensed from Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (“CIEMAT”), which is a leading research institute in Madrid, Spain. RP-L102 is currently being studied in our Phase 2 registrational enabling clinical trials treating FA patients at the Center for Definitive and Curative Medicine at Stanford University School of Medicine (“Stanford”), the University of Minnesota, Great Ormond Street Hospital (“GOSH”) in London and Hospital Infantil de Nino Jesus (“HNJ”) in Spain. The trial is expected to enroll a total of ten patients from the U.S. and EU with the first patient in this Phase 2 trial treated in December 2019. Patients will receive a single intravenous infusion of RP-L102 that utilizes fresh cells and “Process B” which incorporates a modified stem cell enrichment process, transduction enhancers, as well as commercial-grade vector and final drug product.

Resistance to mitomycin-C, a DNA damaging agent, in bone marrow stem cells at a minimum time point of one year post treatment is the primary endpoint for our ongoing Phase 2 study. Per agreement with the FDA and EMA, engraftment leading to bone marrow restoration exceeding a 10% mitomycin-C resistance threshold could support filing the product for approval.

In December, 2020, we presented updated interim data from our FA at the 62nd American Society of Hematology (“ASH”) Annual Meeting.

Table of Contents

The FA data presented at the ASH Annual Meeting were from seven of the nine patients treated (out of twelve patients enrolled) as of October 2020 in both the U.S. Phase 1 and global Phase 2 studies of RP-L102 for FA. Patients in these studies received a single intravenous infusion of “Process B” RP-L102 which incorporates a modified stem cell enrichment process, transduction enhancers, as well as commercial-grade vector. Preliminary data from these studies support “Process B” as a consistent and reproducible improvement over “Process A” which was used in earlier academic FA studies.

Seven patients had follow-up data of at least two-months and three of the seven patients had been followed for twelve-months or longer. As patients are treated with gene therapy product without the use of a conditioning regimen, the data indicated that RP-L102 was generally well-tolerated with no significant safety issues reported with infusion or post-treatment. One drug related serious adverse event of Grade 2 transient infusion-related reaction was observed. In five out of the seven patients for whom there was follow-up data, evidence of preliminary engraftment was observed, with bone marrow (“BM”) vector copy numbers (“VCNs”) from 0.16 to 0.22 (long-term follow-up only) and peripheral VCNs ranging from 0.01 (2-month follow-up) to 0.11 (long-term follow-up). Further, two of the three patients with greater than 12-months follow-up showed evidence of increasing engraftment, mitomycin-C (“MMC”) resistance and stable blood counts, which suggests a halt in the progression of bone marrow failure. The third patient with greater than 12-month follow-up contracted Influenza B nine months post-treatment resulting in progressive BM failure, for which, such patient received a successful bone marrow transplant at 18 months post-treatment.

We expect to report longer-term follow up on these patients in the second quarter of 2021.

Leukocyte Adhesion Deficiency-I (LAD-I):

Overview of LAD-I

LAD-I is a rare autosomal recessive disorder of white blood cell adhesion and migration, resulting from mutations in the ITGB2 gene encoding for the Beta-2 Integrin component, CD18. Deficiencies in CD18 result in an impaired ability for neutrophils (a subset of infection-fighting white blood cells) to leave blood vessels and enter tissues where these cells are needed to combat infections. As is the case with many rare diseases, accurate estimates of incidence are difficult to confirm; however, several hundred cases have been reported to date.

Most LAD-I patients are believed to have the severe form of the disease. Severe LAD-I is notable for recurrent, life-threatening infections and substantial infant mortality in patients who do not receive an allogeneic HSCT. Mortality for severe LAD-I has been reported as 60 to 75% by age two in the absence of allogeneic HCST.

Current Therapy

Allogeneic HSCT is the only known curative therapy, with survival rates of approximately 75% in recent studies. Allogeneic HSCT in LAD-I has been associated with frequent severe and chronic GVHD, and high rates of subsequent non-bacterial infections (most notably cytomegalovirus (“CMV”) and other viral and systemic fungal infections).

Because LAD-I is the result of mutations in a single gene (ITGB2), we are developing RP-L201, an LVV based program, to enable a potentially curative therapy utilizing patients’ own HSPCs, without the dependency on the rapid identification of an appropriate donor required in allogeneic HSCT therapy. It is anticipated that autologous therapy with RP-L201 will also enable definitive correction of this life-threatening disorder with reduced short- and long-term toxicity relative to allogeneic HSCT.

Rationale for Gene Therapy in LAD-I

We believe there are two key reasons why gene therapy could have a transformative role in the treatment of LAD-I: (1) the existence of evidence that even modest correction of the expression of the genetic mutation will increase patient survival in the severe form of the disease, and (2) consistent and robust improvements in transduction and cell processing. Of note, proprietary transduction protocols currently yield product VCNs ≥ 1 and transduction efficiencies of > 50%. In addition, with the addition of either of two transduction enhancing agents, at least a doubling of product VCN has been demonstrated in preliminary experiments.

We believe that combined with a relatively straightforward cell harvest procedure in LAD-I and the likely modest CD18 expression required for clinical impact, RP-L201 can yield a gene therapy product that confers disease resolution comparable to allogeneic HSCT, and without the severe HSCT-associated acute and chronic toxicities.

Rocket Clinical Study

We currently have one ex-vivo program targeting LAD-I, RP-L201. RP-L201 is a clinical program that we in-licensed from CIEMAT. We have partnered with UCLA to lead U.S. clinical development efforts for the LAD-I program. UCLA and its Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research is serving as the lead U.S. clinical research center for the registrational clinical trial for LAD-I, and HNJ is serving as the lead clinical site in Spain. GOSH in London is also a site for the LAD-I trial. This study has received a $6.5 million CLIN2 grant award from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (“CIRM”) to support the clinical development of gene therapy for LAD-I.

The ongoing open-label, single-arm, Phase 1/2 registration enabling clinical trial of RP-L201 has treated four severe LAD-I patients to assess the safety and tolerability of RP-L201 to date. The first patient was treated at UCLA with RP-L201 in the third quarter 2019. Enrollment is now complete in the Phase 1 portion of the study.

Table of Contents

At the virtual European Society for Immunodeficiencies (ESID) 2020 Meeting in October 2020, we provided a clinical update for the LAD-I program. The data presented in the oral presentation was longer-term follow-up data from the Phase 1/2 clinical trial of RP-L201 for LAD-I, from two pediatric patients with severe LAD-I, as defined by CD18 expression of less than 2%. Both patients were treated with RP-L201, our ex-vivo lentiviral gene therapy candidate. Patient L201-003-1001 was 9 years of age at treatment and has been followed for 12 months and Patient L201-003-1004 was 3 years of age at treatment and has been followed for four months. Treatments in both cases were well tolerated, and no safety issues were reported with infusion and post-treatment. Both subjects achieved hematopoietic reconstitution in less than 4 weeks. Patient L201-003-1001 demonstrated durable CD18 expression of 40%, peripheral blood VCN levels of 1.3, visible signs of improvement in existing skin lesions and no new infections reported 12 months post-treatment. Patient L201-003-1004 demonstrated CD18 expression of 28% and early peripheral blood VCN trending similarly to first patient, reported 4 months post-treatment.

Additional data were presented on these two patients, along with a third pediatric severe LAD-I patient at the ASH Annual Meeting. Patient L201-003-1001 was 9 years of age at enrollment and had been followed for 12 months as of November 2020. Patient L201-003-1004 was 3 years of age at enrollment and had been followed for over 6 months. Patient L201-003-2006 was 7 months of age at enrollment and was recently treated with RP-L201.

The data from these three patients indicated that RP-L201 was generally well-tolerated with no safety issues reported with infusion or post-treatment. There were no drug-related serious adverse events or severe adverse events as of the cut-off date. All patients achieved hematopoietic reconstitution within 5 weeks. Peripheral blood VCN and neutrophil CD18-expression were assessed post-treatment to evaluate engraftment and phenotypic correction, and for the three pediatric patients identified above, (i) at 12-months post treatment, Patient L201 -003-1001 demonstrated durable CD18 expression of approximately 40%, peripheral blood VCN levels of 1.2, resolution of skin lesions, (ii) at 6-months post-treatment, Patient L201-003-1004 demonstrated CD18 expression of 23%and peripheral blood VCN kinetics similar to those of the first patient and (iii) at 2-months post-treatment, Patient L201-003-2006 demonstrated preliminary CD18 expression of 76% and peripheral blood VCN kinetics similar to those of the first patient.

We expect to announce initial Phase 2 data in the second quarter of 2021.

Pyruvate Kinase Deficiency (PKD):

Overview of PKD

Red blood cell PKD is a rare autosomal recessive disorder resulting from mutations in the pyruvate kinase L/R (“PKLR”) gene encoding for a component of the red blood cell (“RBC”) glycolytic pathway. PKD is characterized by chronic non-spherocytic hemolytic anemia, a disorder in which RBCs do not assume a normal spherical shape and are broken down, leading to decreased ability to carry oxygen to cells, with anemia severity that can range from mild (asymptomatic) to severe forms that may result in childhood mortality or a requirement for frequent, lifelong RBC transfusions. The pediatric population is the most commonly and severely affected subgroup of patients with PKD, and PKD often results in splenomegaly (abnormal enlargement of the spleen), jaundice and chronic iron overload which is likely the result of both chronic hemolysis and the RBC transfusions used to treat the disease. The variability in anemia severity is believed to arise in part from the large number of diverse mutations that may affect the PKLR gene. Estimates of disease incidence have ranged between 3.2 and 51 cases per million in the white U.S. and EU population. Industry estimates suggest at least 2,500 cases in the U.S. and EU have already been diagnosed despite the lack of FDA-approved molecularly targeted therapies. Market research indicates the application of gene therapy to broader populations could increase the market opportunity from approximately 250 to 500 per year.

Current Therapy

Therapy for PKD is largely supportive, comprised of RBC transfusions and splenectomy for patients who require frequent transfusions. Chronic RBC transfusions alleviate anemia symptoms, but are associated with increased morbidity, predominantly from iron overload which may result in cirrhosis, which is a loss of liver cells and irreversible scarring of the liver, and cardiomyopathy, a chronic disease of the heart muscle that leads to a larger and bulky but inefficient heart, if not diligently managed. Iron chelation is often considered essential to offset the iron overload associated with chronic hemolysis and RBC transfusions. Iron chelation entails continuous oral or injected therapy, often for the duration of a patient’s lifetime and has been associated with diminished quality of life.

Splenectomy may confer a benefit in PKD, frequently yielding increased hemoglobin (“Hb”) levels of 1-2g/dL and a reduction in transfusion requirements. However, some patients do not benefit from this procedure, and it is estimated that a substantial proportion of PKD patients remain severely anemic or transfusion-dependent despite splenectomy. Splenectomy does not eliminate hemolysis, iron overload or the need for iron chelation. It also confers an increased susceptibility to serious bacterial infections, and potentially increases the risk of other PKD-associated or other complications such as venous thromboembolism and aplastic or hemolytic crises.

Allogeneic HSCT has been performed successfully for a small number of PKD patients, with reported correction of the clinical and laboratory features of the disorder. Although reports of HSCT in PKD suggest that correction of the genetic defect in hematopoietic stem cells may be curative of the disorder, HSCT requires identification of an appropriate HLA-matched donor, is associated with considerable short- and long-term complications including transplant-related mortality and is not considered a standard-of-care in PKD.

Rationale for Gene Therapy in PKD

Patients with heterozygous PKLR mutations have 50% of normal enzyme activity and are phenotypically normal. This suggests that it is not necessary for a therapy to achieve normal enzyme levels to have a clinically meaningful effect. In PKD-affected mice transplanted with normal marrow, the presence of 10% normal marrow was sufficient to restore normal red blood cells. We have conducted experiments in which bone marrow cells from healthy mice are transplanted into PKD affected mice and these results suggest that significant improvement in PKD may be achieved with 20% correction of bone marrow, and complete clinical resolution may likely be achieved when the percentage of bone marrow gene-corrected cells is in the 20 to 40% range. An additional study showed that a PKD-affected dog treated with an ex vivo gene therapy was rendered transfusion independent with a normalization of lactate dehydrogenase, despite only partial gene correction.

Table of Contents

Available therapies for PKD, such as splenectomy, are generally associated with an approximate 1.5g/dL increase in hemoglobin levels, and do not modify the underlying iron overload associated with the disorder. As indicated in the pre-clinical studies noted above, and more importantly, in the initial clinical results provided subsequently, gene therapy involving genetic correction of long-term stem and progenitor cells, offers a potential for more comprehensive improvements in hemoglobin, with concomitant reduction in hemolysis and iron overload. As demonstrated in natural history studies published during recent years, the majority of patients receiving splenectomy do not achieve normal hemoglobin levels and hence there continues to be substantial need for therapies with potential to correct the underlying causes of the disorder and associated with hemoglobin corrections reaching or approaching normal range.

Rocket Clinical Study

We currently have one ex-vivo LVV-based program targeting PKD, RP-L301. RP-L301 is a clinical stage program that we in-licensed from CIEMAT. The IND for RP-L301 to initiate the global Phase 1 study cleared in October 2019. This program has been granted US and EMA orphan drug disease designation.

This global Phase 1 open-label, single-arm, clinical trial is expected to enroll six adult and pediatric transfusion-dependent PKD patients in the U.S. and Europe. The trial will be comprised of three cohorts to assess RP-L301 in young pediatric (age 8-11), older pediatric (age 12-17) and adult populations. The trial is designed to assess the safety, tolerability and preliminary activity of RP-L301, and initial safety evaluation will occur in the adult cohort before evaluation in pediatric patients. Stanford will serve as the lead site in the U.S. for adult and pediatric patients, HNJ will serve as the lead site in Europe for pediatrics, and Hospital Universitario Fundación Jiménez Díaz will serve as the lead site in Europe for adult patients. In July 2020, we treated the first patient in our clinical trial of RP-L301.

The data presented at the 2020 ASH Annual Meeting were from two adult PKD patients with significant anemia and transfusion requirements. Patient L301-006-1001 was treated with RP-L301. Preliminary data from this first patient supported initial tolerability of RP-L301, hemoglobin improvement to a normal range at 3-months post treatment and additional normalization of hemolysis markers. The patient was 31-years of age at the time of enrollment and had been followed for 3-months post treatment as of the data cutoff date of October 2020.

Patient L301-006-1001 received a cell dose of 3.9x106 cells/kilogram (“kg”) with a drug product mean VCN of 2.73. For this patient, hematopoietic reconstitution was observed in less than two weeks. Furthermore, the patient attained peripheral blood VCN of 2.21 at 1-month and 1.55 at 3-months and normalized hemoglobin (“Hgb”) and hemolysis markers at 3-months post-treatment. In particular, at baseline, the patient had Hb of approximately 7.4 grams (“g”)/deciliter (“dL”) to Hb of 14.3 g/dL at 3-months post treatment with RP-L301. In the two years prior to enrollment, the patient underwent approximately 14 transfusion episodes; subsequent to engraftment from RP-L301 treatment, the patient to date has not required any red blood cell transfusions. The patient also exhibited normalization of bilirubin, lactate dehydrogenase and erythropoietin levels at 3-months post treatment, each of which had been substantially elevated prior to study enrollment. The patient also had an increase in hepcidin and a decrease in reticulocytes at 3-months post treatment. Patient L301-006-1002, was recently treated with RP-L301, receiving a cell dose of 2.4x106 cells/kg with a mean drug product VCN of 2.08.

The data from Patient L301-006-1001 indicated that RP-L301 was generally well-tolerated and there were no serious safety issues or infusion-related complications observed 3-months post treatment. The patient experienced Grade 3 treatment-emergent adverse events of neutropenia, stomatitis, increased liver transaminase levels (AST and ALT) and a Grade 4 treatment-emergent adverse event of hypertriglyceridemia; the investigator did not consider these adverse events related to RP-L301.

Patient L301-006-1001 also experienced Grade 2 serious adverse events of chest pain, dyspnea, and nausea during the apheresis collection. The investigator considered these events related to apheresis, hyperleukocytosis and the mobilizing agents. They resolved with supportive care and without sequelae. Other events included Grade 2 bone pain and Grade 3 leukocytosis. The second cohort of this study will enroll older pediatric patients and is expected to be initiated in the first half of 2021.

A second patient L301-006-1002, was 47 years old at the time of enrollment and had been recently treated with RP-L301, receiving a cell dose of 2.4x106 cells/kg with a mean drug product VCN of 2.08.

We expect to announce updated data from this study in the second half of 2021.

Infantile Malignant Osteopetrosis (IMO):

Overview of Infantile Malignant Osteopetrosis

IMO is a genetic disorder characterized by increased bone density and bone mass secondary to impaired bone resorption. During normal growth and development small areas of bone are constantly being broken down by special cells called osteoclasts, then made again by cells called osteoblasts. In IMO, the cells that break down bone (osteoclasts) do not work properly, which leads to the bones becoming thicker and not as healthy. Untreated IMO patients may suffer from a compression of the bone-marrow space, which results in bone marrow failure, anemia, and increased infection risk due to the lack of production of white blood cells. Untreated IMO patients may also suffer from a compression of cranial nerves, which transmit signals between vital organs and the brain, resulting in blindness, hearing loss and other neurologic deficits.

Table of Contents

IMO represents the autosomal recessive, severe variants of a group of disorders characterized by increased bone density and bone mass secondary to impaired bone resorption. IMO typically presents in the first year of life and is associated with severe manifestations leading to death within the first decade of life in the absence of allogeneic HSCT, although HSCT results have been limited to-date and notable for frequent graft failure, GVHD and other severe complications.

Approximately 50% of IMO results from mutations in the TCIRG1 gene, resulting in cellular defects that prevent osteoclast bone resorption. As a result of this defect, bone growth is markedly abnormal. It is estimated that IMO occurs in 1 out of 250,000-300,000 within the general global population, although incidence is higher in specific geographic regions including Costa Rica, parts of the Middle East, the Chuvash Republic of Russia, and the Vasterbotten Province of Northern Sweden.

Current Therapy

Allogeneic HSCT is potentially curative, but notable for considerable rates of engraftment failure, GVHD and pulmonary and hepatic complications. In a recent multicenter retrospective series, long-term survival rates for HSCT recipients with IMO were approximately 60% for matched-sibling recipients, and 40% for those with mismatched or unrelated allografts.

Preclinical Proof-of-Concept

Because osteoclasts are derived from the monocyte/macrophage lineage, correction of the TCIRG1 gene in hematopoietic stem cells will enable development of functional, bone-resorbing osteoclasts, as has been demonstrated in preclinical models. Preclinical results demonstrate that gene correction of HSPCs from IMO patients is feasible, and that these HSPCs can engraft in immunocompromised mice. Osteoclasts from these mice demonstrate increased bone resorption in vitro, as measured by increased calcium and collagen fragment CTX-I.

Additional preclinical experiments have demonstrated correction of an osteopetrotic (IMO) phenotype displayed by the oc/oc mouse model, in which even limited engraftment of wild-type murine bone marrow cells (including 4 to 5% wild-type engraftment) has been associated with reversal of the osteopetrosis phenotype.

Rocket Clinical Study

We currently have one LVV-based program targeting IMO, RP-L401. RP-L401 is a preclinical program that we in-licensed from Lund University, Sweden. This program has been granted ODD and Rare Pediatric Disease designation from the FDA. We have partnered with UCLA to lead U.S. clinical development efforts for the IMO program and UCLA will serve as the lead U.S. clinical site for IMO. The IND for RP-L401 to initiate a global Phase 1 study was cleared by the FDA in June 2020. The non-randomized, open-label Phase 1 clinical trial will enroll two pediatric patients, one month of age or older. The trial is designed to assess safety and tolerability of RP-L401, as well as preliminary efficacy, including potential improvements in bone abnormalities/density, hematologic status, and endocrine abnormalities.

In October 2020, we presented pre-clinical data from our LVV-based program targeting IMO, RP-L401, at the ESID 2020 Meeting. Preclinical data on IMO indicate that a modest level of engraftment corrects the disease phenotype in vivo, with increased long-term survival, tooth eruption, weight gain and normalized bone resorption. A comprehensive review of pre-clinical gene therapy investigations in TCIRG1-mediated osteopetrosis published in December 2020 supports acceleration into clinical development for RP-L401.

A clinical trial for RP-L401 was initiated in the fourth quarter of 2020 and recruitment is currently ongoing. On November 12, 2020, the CIRM awarded Rocket up to $3.7 million under a CLIN2 grant award to support the clinical development of its lentiviral vector (LVV)-based gene therapy, RP-L401, for the treatment of IMO.

We expect to report initial Phase 1 clinical trial data in the second half of 2021.

Strategy

We seek to bring hope and relief to patients with devastating, undertreated, rare pediatric diseases through the development and commercialization of potentially curative first-in-class gene therapies. To achieve these objectives, we intend to develop into a fully-integrated biotechnology company. In the near- and medium-term, we intend to develop our first-in-class product candidates, which are targeting devastating diseases with substantial unmet need, develop proprietary in-house analytics and manufacturing capabilities and continue to commence registration trials for our currently planned programs. In the medium and long-term, we expect to submit our first biologics license applications (“BLAs”) and establish our gene therapy platform and expand our pipeline to target additional indications that we believe to be potentially compatible with our gene therapy technologies. In addition, during that time, we believe that our currently planned programs will become eligible for priority review vouchers from the FDA that provide for expedited review. We have assembled a leadership and research team with expertise in cell and gene therapy, rare disease drug development and product approval.

We believe that our competitive advantage lies in our disease-based selection approach, a rigorous process with defined criteria to identify target diseases. We believe that this approach to asset development differentiates us as a gene therapy company and potentially provides us with a first-mover advantage.

Table of Contents

Intellectual Property

We strive to protect and enhance the proprietary technology, inventions, and improvements that are commercially important to the development of our business, including seeking, maintaining, and defending patent rights, whether developed internally or licensed from third parties. We also rely on trade secrets relating to our proprietary technology platform and on know-how, continuing technological innovation and in-licensing opportunities to develop, strengthen and maintain our proprietary position in the field of gene therapy that may be important for the development of our business. We additionally intend to rely on regulatory protection afforded through orphan drug designations, data exclusivity, market exclusivity, and patent term extensions where available.

Our commercial success may depend in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for commercially important technology, inventions and know-how related to our business; defend and enforce our patents; preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets; and operate without infringing the valid enforceable patents and proprietary rights of third parties. Our ability to stop third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing its future products may depend on the extent to which we have rights under valid and enforceable patents or trade secrets that cover these activities. With respect to both licensed and company-owned intellectual property, we cannot be sure that patents will be granted with respect to any of our pending patent applications or with respect to any patent applications filed by us in the future, nor can we be sure that any of our existing patents or any patents that may be granted to us in the future will be commercially useful in protecting our commercial products and methods of manufacturing the same.

We have developed and in-licensed numerous patents and patent applications and possess substantial know-how and trade secrets relating to the development and commercialization of gene therapy products. Our proprietary intellectual property, including patent and non-patent intellectual property, is generally directed to gene expression vectors and methods of using the same for gene therapy. As of February 22, 2021, our patent portfolio includes both owned and in-licensed patent families relating to our product candidates and related technologies, discussed more fully below.

Fanconi Anemia

Our Fanconi Anemia program includes two in-licensed patent families. The first family includes pending patents and pending applications in the U.S., Europe, Japan, China and other countries with claims directed to polynucleotide cassettes and expression vector compositions containing Fanconi Anemia complementation group genes and methods for using such vectors to provide gene therapy in mammalian cells for treating Fanconi Anemia. This application was exclusively in-licensed from CIEMAT, Centro de Investigacion Biomedica En Red, (“CIBER”), Fundacion Instituto de investigacion Sanitaria Fundacion Jimenez Diaz, (“FIISFJD”), and Fundacion Para la Investigacion Biomedica del Hospital Del Nino Jesus. We expect any patents in this family, if issued, and if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees are paid, to expire in 2037, absent any patent term adjustments or extensions.

The second family includes pending U.S., Japanese, and European patent applications related to a portable platform for use in hematopoietic stem/progenitor cell-based gene therapy. This patent family was exclusively in-licensed from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. we expect any patents in this portfolio, if issued, and if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees are paid, to expire in 2036, absent any patent term adjustments or extensions.

Pyruvate Kinase Deficiency (PKD)

Our PKD patent portfolio includes a pending patent application in the U.S., EU, Japan, China and other countries with claims directed to polynucleotide cassettes and expression vector compositions containing pyruvate kinase genes and methods for using such vectors to provide gene therapy in mammalian cells for treating pyruvate kinase deficiency. This application was exclusively in-licensed from CIEMAT, CIBER, and FIISFJD. We expect any patents in this portfolio, if issued, and if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees are paid, to expire in 2037, absent any patent term adjustments or extensions.

Danon Disease

Our Danon disease patent portfolio includes both proprietary intellectual property and a patent family in-licensed from the University of California, San Diego, which includes patent applications in the U.S., Europe, Japan, China and other countries with claims directed to the treatment of Danon disease. We expect any patents in this portfolio, if issued, and if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees are paid, to expire in 2037 absent any patent term adjustments or extensions. We also own a U.S. patent and pending patent application in the EU, Japan, China and other countries with claims directed to gene therapy vectors for the treatment of Danon disease; the U.S. patent issued in 2020. Any patents, if issued, arising from any national stage applications filed from these patent applications, are expected to expire in 2039, absent any patent term adjustments or extensions, if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees are paid. We have also filed a provisional patent application directed to methods for treatment of Danon disease. Any patents, if issued, arising from this provisional patent application, are expected to expire in 2041, absent any patent term adjustments or extensions, if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees are paid.

Infantile Malignant Osteopetrosis (IMO)

Our IMO patent portfolio includes a pending PCT patent application with claims related to a method of manufacturing lentiviral vector used to transduce allogeneic HSCT. We expect any patents arising from any national stage applications filed from this PCT application, if issued, and if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees are paid, to expire in 2040, absent any patent term adjustments or extensions.

Table of Contents

Leukocyte Adhesion Deficiency (LAD-I)

Our patent portfolio includes pending patent applications in the U.S., EU, Japan, China and other countries with claims directed to transduction of allogeneic HSCT, which may be relevant to our LAD-I program. We expect any patents arising from these patent applications, if issued, and if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees are paid, to expire in 2039, absent any patent term adjustments or extensions.

Our objective is to continue to expand its portfolio of patents and patent applications in order to protect our gene therapy product candidates and manufacturing processes. From time to time, we may also evaluate opportunities to sublicense our portfolio of patents and patent applications that we own or exclusively license, and we may enter into such licenses from time to time. The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term of the patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries in which we files, the patent term is 20 years from the date of filing the non-provisional application. In the U.S., a patent’s term may be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in granting a patent or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over an earlier-filed patent.

The term of a patent that covers an FDA-approved drug may also be eligible for patent term extension, which permits patent term restoration of a U.S. patent as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the expiration of the patent. The length of the patent term extension is related to the length of time the drug is under regulatory review. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only one patent applicable to an approved drug may be extended. Moreover, a patent can only be extended once, and thus, if a single patent is applicable to multiple products, it can only be extended based on one product. Similar provisions are available in Europe and other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. When possible, depending upon the length of clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing of a BLA, we expect to apply for patent term extensions for patents covering our product candidates and their methods of use.

We may rely, in some circumstances, on trade secrets to protect our technology. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors and third parties. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of its premises and physical and electronic security of its information technology systems. While we have confidence in these individuals, organizations and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our consultants or collaborators use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions.

Material Contracts

License Agreements with CIEMAT

In March 2016, we entered into a license agreement with CIEMAT, CIBER, and FIISFJD, (collectively, “CIEMAT”), granting us worldwide, exclusive rights to certain patents, know-how and other intellectual property relating to lentiviral vectors containing the human PKLR gene solely within the field of treating PKD. Under the terms of the agreement, we are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to (a) develop and obtain regulatory approval for one or more products or processes covered by the licensed intellectual property, introduce such products or processes into the commercial market and then make them reasonably available to the public (b) develop or commercialize at least one product or process covered by the licensed intellectual property in at least one country for at least two uninterrupted years following regulatory approval, and (c) use the licensed intellectual property in an adequate, ethical and legitimate manner. In exchange for the license, we are obligated to pay CIEMAT an up-front payment, royalty payments based on net sales of products or processes involving any of the licensed intellectual property, developmental and regulatory milestone payments, and sublicense revenue payments. We are responsible for prosecuting and maintaining the licensed patents at our expense, in cooperation with CIEMAT. We also have the first responsibility to enforce and defend the licensed patents against infringement and/or challenge, in cooperation with CIEMAT. For five years following the effective date of the license agreement, we have a right of first refusal to license any improvements to the licensed intellectual property obtained by CIEMAT at market value. We are obligated to license (without charge) to CIEMAT for non-commercial use any improvements to the licensed intellectual property that we create.

As consideration for the licensed rights, we paid CIEMAT an initial upfront license fee of €0.03 million (approximately $0.03 million) which was expensed as R&D costs. We are obligated to make aggregate milestone payments of up to €1.4 million (approximately $1.5 million) to CIEMAT upon the achievement of specified development and regulatory milestones. With respect to any commercialized products covered by the PKD license, we are obligated to pay a low to mid-single digit percentage royalty on net sales, subject to specified adjustments, by us or our sublicensees or affiliates. In the event that we enter into a sublicense agreement with a sublicensee, we will be obligated to pay a portion of any consideration received from such sublicensees in specified circumstances.

We may terminate this agreement at any time by providing CIEMAT with 90 days advance notice. The license is in effect for a duration for each of the countries defined in this agreement for as long as a license right exists that covers the licensed product or process in such country, or until the end of any additional legal protection that should be obtained for the license rights in each country.

Table of Contents

In July 2016, we entered into a license agreement with CIEMAT granting us worldwide, exclusive rights to certain patents, know-how, data and other intellectual property relating to lentiviral vectors containing the FA-A gene solely within the field of human therapeutic uses of VSV-G packaged integration component lentiviral vectors for FA type-A gene therapy. This license is only sublicensable with the prior consent of CIEMAT, not to be unreasonably withheld. Under the terms of the agreement, we are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to (a) develop and obtain regulatory approval for one or more products or processes covered by the licensed intellectual property, introduce such products or processes into the commercial market and then make them reasonably available to the public (b) develop or commercialize at least one product or process covered by the licensed intellectual property in at least one country for at least two uninterrupted years following regulatory approval, and (c) use the licensed intellectual property in an adequate, ethical and legitimate manner. In exchange for the license, we are obligated to pay CIEMAT an up-front payment, royalty payments based on net sales of products or processes involving any of the licensed intellectual property, regulatory and financing milestone payments, and sublicense revenue payments. We are responsible for prosecuting and maintaining the licensed patents at our expense, in cooperation with CIEMAT. We also have the first responsibility to enforce and defend the licensed patents against infringement and/or challenge, in cooperation with CIEMAT. For five years following the effective date of the license agreement, we have a right of first refusal to license any improvements to the licensed intellectual property obtained by CIEMAT at market value. We are obligated to license (without charge) to CIEMAT for non-commercial use any improvements to the licensed intellectual property that we creates.

As consideration for the licensed rights, we paid CIEMAT an initial upfront license fee of €0.1 million (approximately $0.1 million), which was expensed as R&D costs. We are obligated to make aggregate milestone payments of up to €5.0 million (approximately $6.0 million) to CIEMAT upon the achievement of specified development and regulatory milestones. With respect to any commercialized products covered by the license, we are obligated to pay a mid-single digit percentage royalty on net sales, subject to specified adjustments, by us or our sublicensees or affiliates. In the event that we enter into a sublicense agreement with a sublicensee, we will be obligated to pay a portion of any consideration received from such sublicensees in specified circumstances.

We may terminate this agreement at any time by providing CIEMAT with 90 days’ advance notice. The license is in effect for a duration for each of the countries defined in this agreement for as long as a license right exists that covers the licensed product or process in such country, or until the end of any additional legal protection that should be obtained for the license rights in each country.

Contract Research and Collaboration Agreement with Lund University and J. Richter

In August 2016, we entered into a research and collaboration agreement with Lund University and Johan Richter, M.D., Ph.D. under which Dr. Richter granted to us an exclusive, perpetual, sublicensable, worldwide license to certain intellectual property rights of Dr. Richter relating to lentiviral-mediated gene transfer to treat IMO. In exchange for the license, we are obligated to make an up-front payment, certain clinical and commercial milestone payments, royalty payments (on net sales of products covered by a valid claim within the licensed intellectual property) and sublicense revenue payments to Dr. Richter. Under the terms of the agreement, Lund University and Dr. Richter are obligated to perform contract research for us regarding the use of lentiviral-mediated gene transfer to treat IMO. Intellectual property resulting from the contract research created by Dr. Richter is included in the license described above and also subject to an option for us to purchase ownership of such rights. Intellectual property created by Lund University in conducting such research is non-exclusively licensed to us for non-commercial use and also subject to an option for us to purchase or license such intellectual property under commercially reasonable terms. We are obligated to pay for the contract research according to an agreed budget in quarterly installments in advance.

As consideration for an option to acquire rights from Lund University on commercially reasonable terms and conditions, we paid Lund University an upfront license fee of €0.02 million (approximately $0.02 million), which was expensed as R&D costs. We are obligated to make aggregate milestone payments of up to €0.1 million (approximately $0.1 million) to Lund University and Dr. Richter upon the achievement of specified development and regulatory milestones. With respect to any commercialized products covered by the Lund University agreement, we are obligated to pay a low single digit percentage royalty on net sales, subject to specified adjustments, by us or our sublicensees or affiliates. If we enter into a sublicense agreement with a sublicensee, we will be obligated to pay a portion of any consideration received from such sublicensees in specified circumstances.

The research and collaboration agreement had an initial term of 24 months and was amended to extend the term multiple times. In January 2021, the research and collaboration agreement was extended until July 31, 2021.

License Agreement for LAD-I with CIEMAT and UCLB

We entered into a license agreement in November 2017, effective September 2017, with CIEMAT and UCL Business PLC (“UCLB”), collectively referred to as (“Licensors”), granting us worldwide, exclusive rights to certain patents, know-how and other intellectual property relating to lentiviral vectors containing the human LAD-I gene solely within the field of treating LAD-I. Under the terms of the agreement, we are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to (a) develop and obtain regulatory approval for one or more products or processes covered by the licensed intellectual property, introduce such products or processes into the commercial market and then make them reasonably available to the public, (b) develop or commercialize at least one product or process covered by the licensed intellectual property in at least one country for at least two uninterrupted years following regulatory approval, and (c) use the licensed intellectual property in an adequate, ethical and legitimate manner. In exchange for the license, we are obligated to pay Licensors an up-front payment, royalty payments in the mid-single digit percentages based on net sales of products or processes involving any of the licensed intellectual property, developmental and regulatory milestone payments, and sublicense revenue payments. We are responsible for prosecuting and maintaining the licensed patents at our expense, in cooperation with Licensors. We also have the first responsibility to enforce and defend the licensed patents against infringement and/or challenge, in cooperation with Licensors. For five years following the effective date of the license agreement, we have a right of first refusal to license any improvements to the licensed intellectual property obtained by Licensors at market value. We are obligated to license (without charge) to Licensors for non-commercial use any improvements to the licensed intellectual property that we create.

As consideration for the licensed rights, we paid Licensors an initial upfront license fee of €0.03 million (approximately $0.04 million), which was expensed as R&D costs. We are obligated to make aggregate payments of up to €1.4 million (approximately $1.5 million) to Licensors upon the achievement of specified development and regulatory milestones. With respect to any commercialized products covered by the LAD-I license, we are obligated to pay a mid-single digit percentage royalty on net sales, subject to specified adjustments, by us or our sublicensees or affiliates. In the event that we enter into a sublicense agreement with a sublicensee, we will be obligated to pay a portion of any consideration received from such sublicensees in specified circumstances.

Table of Contents

We may terminate this agreement at any time by providing the Licensors with 90 days’ advance notice. The license is in effect for a duration for each of the countries defined in this agreement for as long as a license right exists that covers the licensed product or process in such country, or until the end of any additional legal protection that should be obtained for the license rights in each country.

License Agreement for Danon Disease with UCSD

In February 2017, we entered into a license agreement with The Regents of the University of California, represented by its San Diego campus (“UCSD”), under which UCSD granted us an exclusive, sublicensable, worldwide license to certain intellectual property rights for the treatment of lysosomal storage diseases, including Danon disease. In exchange for the license, we became obligated to make an up-front payment, certain clinical and commercial milestone payments, royalty payments (on net sales of products covered by a valid claim within the licensed intellectual property), maintenance fees and sublicense revenue payments.

The upfront license fee of $0.05 million was expensed as R&D costs. We are obligated to make aggregate milestone payments of up to $1.5 million to UCSD upon the achievement of specified development and regulatory milestones for the treatment of Danon disease. A reduced schedule of milestone payments applies to achieving the same milestones for additional indications. With respect to any commercialized products covered by the agreement, we are obligated to pay a low single digit percentage royalty on net sales, subject to specified adjustments. If we enter into a sublicense agreement with a sublicensee, we will be obligated to pay a portion of any consideration received from such sublicensees in specified circumstances. We are also subject to certain diligence milestones for development of a product using the intellectual property licensed from UCSD under this agreement.

The term of the license agreement with UCSD is through the expiration of the licensed patents, some of which are still in the pending application phase.

REGENXBIO, Inc. License

On November 19, 2018, we entered into a license agreement with REGENXBIO Inc. (“RGNX”), pursuant to which we obtained an exclusive license for all U.S. patents and patent applications related to RGNX’s NAV AAV-9 vector for the treatment of Danon disease in humans by in vivo gene therapy using AAV-9 to deliver any known LAMP2 transgene isoforms and all possible combinations of LAMP2 transgene isoforms (the “Field”), as well as an exclusive option to license (the “Option Right”) all U.S. patents and patent applications for two additional NAV AAV vectors in the Field (each, a “Licensed Patent” and collectively, the “Licensed Patents”).

In consideration for the rights granted to us under the license agreement, we made an upfront payment to RGNX of $7.0 million which was expensed to R&D costs in the 2018 consolidated statements of operations. A fee of $2.0 million per additional vector would be due if we exercise our Option Right to purchase additional vectors. The license agreement provides for royalties payable to RGNX in the high-single digits to low-teens on net sales levels of products incorporating the Licensed Patents (the “Licensed Products”) during the royalty term. If successful, we will be required to make milestone payments to RGNX of up to $13.0 million for each Licensed Product upon the achievement of specified clinical development and regulatory milestones in the U.S. and EU. In addition, we shall pay RGNX 20% of the payment fees received from a priority review voucher issued in connection with or otherwise related to a Licensed Product. These royalty obligations are subject to specified reductions if additional licenses from third parties are required. We must also pay RGNX a portion of all non-royalty sublicense income (if any) received from sublicensees. We paid a $1.0 million license fee payment under the RGNX agreement upon the dosing of the first Danon patient in 2019 which was expensed to R&D costs in the 2019 consolidated statements of operations. There were no additional milestones achieved or related payments made during the year ended December 31, 2020.

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including in the field of gene therapy, are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary products and novel therapies. While we believe that our experience and scientific knowledge provides it with competitive advantages, we face potential competition from many different sources, including larger and better-funded pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, new market entrants and new technologies, as well as from academic institutions, government agencies and private and public research institutions, which may in the future develop products to treat the indications targeted by our pipeline that have not yet been conceived. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing therapies such as bone marrow transplantation and new therapies that may become available in the future. We believe that the key competitive factors affecting the success of our product candidates, if approved, are likely to be efficacy, safety, convenience, price, pharmaco-economic value, tolerability and the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from governmental authorities and other third-party payors. In addition, we intend to develop single treatment curative therapies for clinical indications that address mortality or high morbidity, which could differentiate us from potential competitors developing alternative competitive therapies that may require chronic or repetitive treatment.

Other early-stage companies may also compete through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of companies developing gene therapies. These companies also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

Table of Contents

We anticipate that we will face intense and increasing competition as new drugs and therapeutic modalities enter the market and advanced technologies become available. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our potential competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer adverse effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our potential competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for our products.

Manufacturing

Our gene therapy platform has two main components: the production of LVV vectors and AAV vectors and the target cell transduction process, which results in drug product. We do not currently operate manufacturing facilities for clinical or commercial production of our product candidates, although we anticipate beginning GMP manufacturing at our facility in Cranbury, New Jersey in 2021. We plan to supplement current supply arrangements with our own direct manufacturing capabilities for our AAV programs. We currently rely on third-party manufacturers to produce the plasmids, vectors, cell banks and final drug product for our clinical trials. We manage such production with our vendors on a purchase order basis in accordance with applicable master service and supply agreements. We have long-term agreements with these manufacturers. Whenever possible, we procure materials from redundant and multiple sources to mitigate risk. If any of our existing third-party suppliers should become unavailable to us for any reason, we believe that there are a number of potential replacements, although we might experience a delay in our ability to obtain alternative suppliers. We also do not have any current contractual relationships for the manufacture of commercial supplies of our product candidates if they become registered. With respect to commercial production of our product candidates in the future, we plan to pursue multiple options including direct manufacturing as well as outsourcing production of the active pharmaceutical (drug substance) ingredients and final drug product manufacturing (drug product) to contract manufacturing organizations if these products are approved and registered for marketing authorization by the applicable regulatory bodies.

We expect to continue to develop drug candidates that can be produced in a cost-effective manner through direct manufacturing or at contract manufacturing facilities. Should a supplier or manufacturer on which we have relied to produce a product candidate provide us with a faulty product or such product is later recalled, or should we experience such problems for our own products produced through direct manufacturing, we would likely experience delays and additional costs, each of which could be significant.

Government Regulation

FDA Regulation and Marketing Approval

In the U.S., the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), and biologics under the Public Health Service Act, the regulations promulgated under both laws and other federal, state, and local statutes and regulations. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. regulatory requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions and non-approval of product candidates. These sanctions could include, among other things, the imposition by the FDA of a clinical hold on trials, the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications or related supplements, withdrawal of an approval, untitled or warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, restitution, disgorgement, civil penalties, or criminal prosecution. Such actions by government agencies could also require us to expend a large amount of resources to respond to the actions. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.

The FDA and comparable regulatory agencies in state and local jurisdictions and in foreign countries impose substantial requirements upon the clinical development, approval, manufacture, distribution and marketing of pharmaceutical products. These agencies and other federal, state and local entities regulate R&D activities and the testing, manufacture, quality control, safety, effectiveness, labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, record keeping, approval, post-approval monitoring, advertising, promotion, sampling and import and export of our products. Rocket’s drugs must be approved by the FDA as biologics through the BLA approval process applicable to gene therapy product candidates, before they may be legally marketed in the U.S.

Within the FDA, the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (“CBER”) regulates gene therapy products and has published guidance documents with respect to the development these types of products. The FDA also has published guidance documents related to, among other things, gene therapy products in general, their preclinical assessment, observing subjects involved in gene therapy studies for delayed adverse events, potency testing, and chemistry, manufacturing and control information in gene therapy INDs.

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

• preparation and submission to the FDA of a BLA;

Table of Contents

Preclinical Studies

Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of the purity and stability of the manufactured drug substance or active pharmaceutical ingredient and the formulated drug or drug product, as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess the safety and activity of the drug for initial testing in humans and to establish a rationale for therapeutic use. The conduct of preclinical studies is subject to federal regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations. The results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and plans for clinical studies, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND.

Companies usually must complete some long-term preclinical testing, such as animal tests of reproductive adverse events and carcinogenicity and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug and finalize a process for manufacturing the drug in commercial quantities in accordance with (“cGMP”) requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the drug candidate and, among other things, the manufacturer must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, and purity of the final drug product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the drug candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

IND and Clinical Trials

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements. Clinical trials are conducted under written study protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Prior to commencing the first clinical trial, an initial IND, which contains the results of preclinical testing along with other information, such as information about product chemistry, manufacturing and controls and a proposed protocol, must be submitted to the FDA. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA unless the FDA within the 30-day time period raises concerns or questions about the drug product or the conduct of the clinical trial and imposes a clinical hold. A clinical hold may also be imposed at any time while the IND is in effect. In such a case, the IND sponsor must resolve any outstanding concerns with the FDA before the clinical trial may begin or re-commence. Accordingly, submission of an IND may or may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence or continue.

In addition to the submission of an IND to the FDA before initiation of a clinical trial in the United States, certain human clinical trials involving recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules are subject to oversight of institutional biosafety committees, or IBCs, as set forth in the NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules, or NIH Guidelines. Specifically, under the NIH Guidelines, supervision of human gene transfer trials includes evaluation and assessment by an IBC, a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees research utilizing recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules at that institution. The IBC assesses the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment, and such review may result in some delay before initiation of a clinical trial. While the NIH Guidelines are not mandatory unless the research in question is being conducted at or sponsored by institutions receiving NIH funding of recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research, many companies and other institutions not otherwise subject to the NIH Guidelines voluntarily follow them.

A sponsor who wishes to conduct a clinical trial outside the U.S. may, but need not, obtain FDA authorization to conduct the clinical trial under an IND. If a foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor may submit data from the clinical trial to the FDA in support of a BLA or IND so long as the clinical trial is conducted in compliance with GCP, and the FDA is able to validate the data from the study through an onsite inspection if the agency deems it necessary.

A separate submission to the existing IND must be made for each successive clinical trial to be conducted during product development. Further, an independent Institutional Review Board (“IRB”) for each site at which the clinical trial will be conducted must review and approve the clinical trial before it commences at that site. Informed written consent must also be obtained from each trial subject. Regulatory authorities, including the FDA, an IRB, a data safety monitoring board or the sponsor, may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the participants are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk or that the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with FDA requirements.

Human clinical trials for BLA approval typically involve a three-phase process, although some phases may overlap or be combined. Phase 1, the initial clinical evaluations, consists of administering the drug and testing for safety and tolerated dosages and in some indications such as rare disease, as preliminary evidence of efficacy in humans. Phase 2 involves a study to evaluate the effectiveness of the drug for a particular indication and to determine optimal dosage and dose interval and to identify possible adverse side effects and risks in a larger patient group. When a product is found safe, and initial efficacy is established in Phase 2, it is then evaluated in Phase 3 clinical trials. Phase 3 trials consist of expanded multi-location testing for efficacy and safety to evaluate the overall benefit-to-risk index of the investigational drug in relationship to the disease treated. The results of preclinical and human clinical testing are submitted to the FDA in the form of a BLA for approval to commence commercial sales.

Table of Contents

All clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with FDA regulations, GCP requirements and their protocols in order for the data to be considered reliable for regulatory purposes. Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and more frequently if serious adverse events occur. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, or at all.

Government regulation may delay or prevent marketing of product candidates or new drugs for a considerable period of time and impose costly procedures upon our activities.

Disclosure of Clinical Trial Information

Sponsors of clinical trials of FDA-regulated products, including drugs, are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators, and other aspects of the clinical trial is then made public as part of the registration. Sponsors are also obligated to disclose the results of their clinical trials after completion. Disclosure of the results of these trials can be delayed until the new product or new indication being studied has been approved up to a maximum of two years. Competitors may use this publicly available information to gain knowledge regarding the progress of development programs.

The BLA Approval Process

In order to obtain approval to market a drug in the U.S., a marketing application must be submitted to the FDA that provides data establishing to the FDA’s satisfaction the safety and effectiveness of the investigational drug for the proposed indication. The application includes all relevant data available from pertinent non-clinical or preclinical studies and clinical trials, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls and proposed labeling, among other things. Data can come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and effectiveness of a use of a product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators that meet GCP requirements.

During the development of a new drug, sponsors are given opportunities to meet with the FDA at certain points. These points may be prior to submission of an IND, at the End-of-Phase 1 or 2, and before a BLA is submitted. Meetings at other times may be requested. These meetings can provide an opportunity for the sponsor to share information about the data gathered to date, for the FDA to provide advice and for the sponsor and the FDA to reach agreement on the next phase of development.

The results of product development, non-clinical studies and clinical trials, along with descriptions of the manufacturing process, analytical tests conducted on the chemistry of the drug, proposed labeling and other relevant information are submitted to the FDA as part of a BLA requesting approval to market the product for its intended indication. The FDA reviews all BLAs submitted to ensure that they are sufficiently complete for substantive review before it accepts them for filing. It may request additional information rather than accept a BLA for filing. In this event, the BLA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. The FDA has 60 days from its receipt of a BLA to conduct an initial review to determine whether the application will be accepted for filing based on the agency’s threshold determination that the application is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA reviews a BLA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe and potent, or effective, for its intended use, and has an acceptable purity profile, and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP to assure and preserve the product’s identity, safety, strength, quality, potency and purity. The FDA has agreed to specific performance goals on the review of BLA’s. Specifically, FDA under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, as amended, the FDA has 10 months, from the filing date, in which to complete its initial review of an original BLA and respond to the applicant, and six months from the filing date of an original BLA designated for priority review. The review process may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider certain late-submitted information or information intended to clarify information already provided in the submission. After the FDA completes its substantive review of a BLA, it will communicate to the sponsor that the drug will either be approved, or it will issue a complete response letter to communicate that the BLA will not be approved in its current form and inform the sponsor of changes that must be made or additional clinical, non-clinical or manufacturing data that must be received before the application can be approved, with no implication regarding the ultimate approvability of the application or the timing of any such approval, if ever. If or when those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the BLA, the FDA may issue an approval letter. FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in two to six months depending on the type of information included. The FDA may refer applications for novel drug products or drug products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation, and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and, if so, under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA typically will inspect the facilities at which the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving a BLA, the FDA may inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP. For a gene therapy product, the FDA also will not approve the product if the manufacturer is not in compliance with the cGTPs. These are FDA regulations that govern the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for, the manufacture of human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products, or HCT/Ps, which are human cells or tissue intended for implantation, transplant, infusion, or transfer into a human recipient. The primary intent of the CGTP requirements is to ensure that cell and tissue-based products are manufactured in a manner designed to prevent the introduction, transmission and spread of communicable disease. FDA regulations also require tissue establishments to register and list their HCT/Ps with the FDA and, when applicable, to evaluate donors through appropriate screening and testing. If the FDA determines that the application, manufacturing process or manufacturing facilities are not acceptable, it typically will outline the deficiencies and often will request additional testing or information. This may significantly delay further review of the application. If the FDA finds that a clinical site did not conduct the clinical trial in accordance with GCP, the FDA may determine the data generated by the clinical site should be excluded from the primary efficacy analyses provided in the BLA. Additionally, notwithstanding the submission of any requested additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

Table of Contents

The FDA may require, or companies may pursue, additional clinical trials after a product is approved. These so-called Phase 4 or post-approval trials may be made a condition to be satisfied for continuing drug approval. The results of Phase 4 trials can confirm the effectiveness of a product candidate and can provide important safety information. In addition, the FDA has authority to require sponsors to conduct post-marketing trials to specifically address safety issues identified by the agency. See “Post-Marketing Requirements” below.

The FDA also has authority to require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”), from manufacturers to ensure that the benefits of a drug outweigh its risks. A sponsor may also voluntarily propose a REMS as part of the BLA submission. The need for a REMS is determined as part of the review of the BLA. Based on statutory standards, elements of a REMS may include “Dear Doctor letters,” a medication guide, more elaborate targeted educational programs, and in some cases distribution and use restrictions, referred to as elements to assure safe use (“ETASU”). ETASU can include, but are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring and the use of patient registries. These elements are negotiated as part of the BLA approval, and in some cases the approval date may be delayed. Once adopted, REMS are subject to periodic assessment and modification.

Changes to some of the conditions established in an approved application, including changes in indications, labeling, manufacturing processes or facilities, require submission and FDA approval of a new BLA or BLA supplement before the change can be implemented. A BLA supplement for a new indication typically requires clinical data similar to that in the original application, and the FDA uses the same procedures and actions in reviewing BLA supplements as it does in reviewing BLAs.

Even if a product candidate receives regulatory approval, the approval may be limited to specific disease states, patient populations and dosages, or might contain significant limitations on use in the form of warnings, precautions or contraindications, or in the form of onerous risk management plans, restrictions on distribution or use, or post-marketing trial requirements. Further, even after regulatory approval is obtained, later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product may result in restrictions on the product, including safety labeling or imposition of a REMS, the requirement to conduct post-market studies or clinical trials or even complete withdrawal of the product from the market. Delay in obtaining, or failure to obtain, regulatory approval for our products, or obtaining approval but for significantly limited use, would harm our business. In addition, we cannot predict what adverse governmental regulations may arise from future U.S. or foreign governmental action.

The Hatch-Waxman Amendments

Under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, a portion of a product’s U.S. patent term that was lost during clinical development and regulatory review by the FDA may be restored by returning up to five years of patent life for a patent that covers a new product or its use. This period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND (falling after issuance of the patent) and the submission date of a BLA, plus the time between the submission date of a BLA and the approval of that application, provided that the sponsor acted with diligence. Patent term restorations, however, cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only one patent applicable to an approved drug may be extended and the extension must be applied for prior to expiration of the patent. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration.

Market Exclusivity

The Affordable Care Act, or ACA, signed into law on March 23, 2010, includes a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or the BPCIA, which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products shown to be similar to, or interchangeable with, an FDA-approved reference biological product. Bio similarity, which requires that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency, can be shown through analytical studies, animal studies, and a clinical trial or trials. Interchangeability requires that a product is biosimilar to the reference product and the product must demonstrate that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product and, for products administered multiple times, the biologic and the reference biologic may be switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic. However, complexities associated with the larger, and often more complex, structure of biological products, as well as the process by which such products are manufactured, pose significant hurdles to implementation that are still being worked out by the FDA.

A reference biological product is granted four and twelve (12) year exclusivity periods from the time of first licensure of the product. FDA will not accept an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until four years after the date of first licensure of the reference product, and FDA will not approve an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until twelve (12) years after the date of first licensure of the reference product. “First licensure” typically means the initial date the particular product at issue was approved in the United States. Date of first licensure does not include the date of licensure of (and a new period of exclusivity is not available for) a biological product if the licensure is for a supplement for the biological product or for a subsequent application by the same sponsor or manufacturer of the biological product (or licensor, predecessor in interest, or other related entity) for a change (not including a modification to the structure of the biological product) that results in a new indication, route of administration, dosing schedule, dosage form, delivery system, delivery device or strength, or for a modification to the structure of the biological product that does not result in a change in safety, purity, or potency. Therefore, one must determine whether a new product includes a modification to the structure of a previously approved product that results in a change in safety, purity, or potency to assess whether the licensure of the new product is a first licensure that triggers its own period of exclusivity. Whether a subsequent application, if approved, warrants exclusivity as the “first licensure” of a biological product is determined on a case-by-case basis with data submitted by the sponsor.

Table of Contents

In addition, under the Orphan Drug Act, FDA may designate a biologic product as an “orphan drug” if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition (generally meaning that it affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the U.S., or more in cases in which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making a biologic product available in the U.S. for treatment of the disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product). Orphan product designation must be requested before submitting a BLA. After FDA grants orphan product designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by FDA. Orphan product designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. If a product with orphan status receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, meaning that FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug or biologic product for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity or if the party holding the exclusivity fails to assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the drug to meet the needs of patients with the disease or condition for which the drug was designated. Competitors, however, may receive approval of different products for the same indication than that for which the orphan product has exclusivity or obtain approval for the same product but for a different indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity. Orphan medicinal product status in the EU has similar, but not identical, benefits.

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent marketing exclusivity in the U.S. and, if granted, provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing regulatory exclusivity, including the non-patent exclusivity. This six-month exclusivity may be granted if a BLA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond to a written request from the FDA for such data.

Rare Pediatric Disease Designation and Priority Review Vouchers

Under the FDCA, the FDA incentivizes the development of drugs and biological products that meet the definition of a “rare pediatric disease,” defined to mean a serious or life-threatening disease in which the serious of life-threatening manifestations primarily affect individuals aged from birth to 18 years and the disease affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States or affects more than 200,000 in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making in the United States a drug or biological product for such disease or condition will be received from sales in the United States of such drug or biological product. The sponsor of a product candidate for a rare pediatric disease may be eligible for a voucher that can be used to obtain a priority review for a subsequent human drug or biological product application after the date of approval of the rare pediatric disease drug or biological product, referred to as a priority review voucher, or PRV. A sponsor may request rare pediatric disease designation from the FDA prior to the submission of its BLA. A rare pediatric disease designation does not guarantee that a sponsor will receive a PRV upon approval of its BLA. Moreover, a sponsor who chooses not to submit a rare pediatric disease designation request may nonetheless receive a PRV upon approval of their marketing application if they request such a voucher in their original marketing application and meet all of the eligibility criteria. If a PRV is received, it may be sold or transferred an unlimited number of times. Congress has extended the PRV program through September 30, 2024, with the potential for PRVs to be granted through September 30, 2026.

Expedited Development and Review Programs

FDA is authorized to expedite the review of BLAs in several ways. Under the Fast-Track program, the sponsor of a biologic product candidate may request FDA to designate the product for a specific indication as a Fast-Track product concurrent with or after the filing of the IND. Biologic 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 FDA, FDA may initiate review of sections of a Fast-Track BLA before the application is complete, a process known as rolling review.

Any product submitted to FDA for marketing, including under a Fast-Track program, may be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as regenerative medicine advanced therapy (“RMAT”) designation, priority review and accelerated approval.

Table of Contents

Fast Track designation, priority review and accelerated approval do not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process.

Additionally, biologic products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and thatprovide 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, FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug or biologic product candidate receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical trials. In addition, FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials.

In the European Economic Area, the EMA may grant marketing authorizations for certain categories of medicinal products on the basis of less complete data than is normally required, where the benefit of immediate availability of the medicine outweighs the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required, or in the interests of public health. In such cases, it is possible for the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or CHMP, to recommend the granting of a marketing authorization, subject to certain specific obligations to be reviewed annually, which is referred to as a conditional marketing authorization. This may apply to medicinal products for human use that fall under the jurisdiction of the EMA, including those that aim at the treatment, the prevention, or the medical diagnosis of seriously debilitating or life-threatening diseases and those designated as orphan medicinal products.

A conditional marketing authorization may be granted when the CHMP finds that, although comprehensive clinical data referring to the safety and efficacy of the medicinal product have not been supplied, all the following requirements are met:

• the risk-benefit balance of the medicinal product is positive;

• unmet medical needs will be fulfilled; and

The granting of a conditional marketing authorization is restricted to situations in which only the clinical part of the application is not yet fully complete. Incomplete preclinical or quality data may only be accepted if duly justified and only in the case of a product intended to be used in emergency situations in response to public health threats. Conditional marketing authorizations are valid for one year, on a renewable basis. The holder will be required to complete ongoing trials or to conduct new trials with a view to confirming that the benefit-risk balance is positive. In addition, specific obligations may be imposed in relation to the collection of pharmacovigilance data.

The conditional marketing authorization can be converted into a standard marketing authorization (which is no longer subject to specific obligations) once the marketing authorization holder fulfils the obligations imposed under the conditional authorization and the complete data confirm that the medicine’s benefits continue to outweigh its risks.

Post-Marketing Requirements

Following approval of a new product, a pharmaceutical company and the approved product are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, monitoring and recordkeeping activities, reporting to the applicable regulatory authorities of adverse experiences with the product, providing the regulatory authorities with updated safety and efficacy information, product sampling and distribution requirements, and complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include, among others, standards for direct-to-consumer advertising, restrictions on promoting drugs for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the drug’s approved labeling, or off-label use, limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and requirements for promotional activities involving the internet. Although physicians may, in their independent professional medical judgment, prescribe legally available drugs for off-label uses, manufacturers typically may not market or promote such off-label uses. Modifications or enhancements to the product or its labeling or changes of the site of manufacture are often subject to the approval of the FDA and other regulators, who may or may not grant approval or may include a lengthy review process.

Prescription drug advertising is subject to federal, state, and foreign regulations. In the U.S., the FDA regulates prescription drug promotion, including direct-to-consumer advertising. Prescription drug promotional materials must be submitted to the FDA in conjunction with their first use. Any distribution of prescription drug products and pharmaceutical samples must comply with the U.S. Prescription Drug Marketing Act, a part of the FDCA.

In the U.S., once a product is approved, its manufacturing is subject to comprehensive and continuing regulation by the FDA. The FDA regulations require that products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with cGMP. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the production of clinical and commercial quantities of our LVV products in accordance with cGMP regulations. We anticipate that we will also utilize direct manufacturing capabilities for clinical supplies for our AAV program, beginning in 2021. cGMP regulations require among other things, quality control and quality assurance as well as the corresponding maintenance of records and documentation and the obligation to investigate and correct any deviations from cGMP. Drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP and other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. These regulations also impose certain organizational, procedural and documentation requirements with respect to manufacturing and quality assurance activities. BLA holders using contract manufacturers, laboratories or packagers are responsible for the selection and monitoring of qualified firms, and, in certain circumstances, qualified suppliers to these firms. These firms and, where applicable, their suppliers are subject to inspections by the FDA at any time, and the discovery of violative conditions, including failure to conform to cGMP, could result in enforcement actions that interrupt the operation of any such product or may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer, or holder of an approved BLA, including, among other things, recall or withdrawal of the product from the market.

Table of Contents

In addition, the manufacturer and/or sponsor under an approved BLA are subject to annual product and establishment fees. These fees are typically increased annually.

The FDA also may require post-marketing testing, also known as Phase 4 testing, to monitor the effects of an approved product or place conditions on an approval via a REMS that could restrict the distribution or use of the product. Discovery of previously unknown problems with a product or the failure to comply with applicable FDA requirements can have negative consequences, including adverse publicity, judicial or administrative enforcement, untitled or warning letters from the FDA, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors, withdrawal of approval, and civil or criminal penalties, among others. Newly discovered or developed safety or effectiveness data may require changes to a product’s approved labeling, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications, and also may require the implementation of other risk management measures. Also, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our products under development.

Coverage and Reimbursement

Sales of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend in part on the availability of reimbursement from third-party payors, including government healthcare program administrative authorities, managed care organizations, private health insurers, and other entities. Patients who are prescribed medications for the treatment of their conditions, and their prescribing physicians, generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all of part of the costs associated with their prescription drugs. Patients are unlikely to use our products unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of our products. Therefore, our products, once approved, may not obtain market acceptance unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of our products.

The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a drug product typically is separate from the process for setting the price of a drug product or for establishing the reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the drug product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific drug products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved drugs for a particular indication. A decision by a third-party payor not to cover our product candidates could reduce physician utilization of our products once approved. Moreover, a third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development. Additionally, coverage and reimbursement for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor. One third-party payor’s decision to cover a particular drug product or service does not ensure that other payors will also provide coverage for the medical product or service or will provide coverage at an adequate reimbursement rate. As a result, the coverage determination process will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately and will be a time-consuming process.

The containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal, state, and foreign governments, and the prices of drugs have been a focus in this effort. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged for drug products and medical services, examining the medical necessity, and reviewing the cost effectiveness of drug products and medical services, in addition to questioning safety and efficacy. If these third-party payors do not consider our products to be cost-effective compared to other available therapies, they may not cover our products after FDA approval or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our products at a profit.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided funding for the federal government to compare the effectiveness of different treatments for the same illness. The plan for the research was published in 2012 by the Department of Health and Human Services, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes for Health, and periodic reports on the status of the research and related expenditures will be made to Congress. Although the results of the comparative effectiveness studies are not intended to mandate coverage policies for public or private payors, it is not clear what effect, if any, the research will have on the sales of our product candidates, if any such product or the condition that it is intended to treat is the subject of a study. It is also possible that comparative effectiveness research demonstrating benefits in a competitor’s product could adversely affect the sales of our product candidates, once approved. If third-party payors do not consider our products to be cost-effective compared to other available therapies, they may not cover our products after approval as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our products on a profitable basis.

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

Table of Contents

Anti-Kickback and False Claims Laws and Other Regulatory Matters

In the U.S., among other things, the research, manufacturing, distribution, sale and promotion of drug products and medical devices are potentially subject to regulation and enforcement by various federal, state and local authorities in addition to the FDA, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, other divisions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (e.g., the Office of Inspector General), the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, state Attorneys General and other state and local government agencies. Our current and future business activities, including for example, sales, marketing, and scientific/educational grant programs must comply with healthcare regulatory laws, as applicable, which may include the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the Federal False Claims Act, as amended, the privacy and security regulations promulgated under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”), as amended, physician payment transparency laws, and similar state laws. Pricing and rebate programs must comply with the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program requirements of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, as amended, and the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992, as amended. If products are made available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule of the General Services Administration, additional laws and requirements apply. All of these activities are also potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

The distribution of pharmaceutical products is subject to additional requirements and regulations, including extensive record-keeping, licensing, storage, and security requirements intended to prevent the unauthorized sale of pharmaceutical products.

The Federal Anti-Kickback Statute makes it illegal for any person or entity, including a prescription drug manufacturer (or a party acting on its behalf) to knowingly and willfully, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, solicit, receive, offer, or pay any remuneration that is intended to induce the referral of business, including the purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for or recommending the purchase, lease or order of, any good, facility, item or service for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under a federal healthcare program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. The term “remuneration” has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value. The Federal Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand and prescribers, purchasers, and formulary managers on the other. Although there are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution, the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly. Practices that involve remuneration that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchases or recommendations may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. Failure to meet all of the requirements of a particular applicable statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor does not make the conduct per se illegal under the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Instead, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a cumulative review of all of its facts and circumstances. Additionally, the intent standard under the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute was amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care Education and Reconciliation Act (collectively, the “ACA”), to a stricter standard such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the ACA codified case law that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the Federal False Claims Act. Violations of this law are punishable by up to five years in prison, criminal fines, administrative civil money penalties, and exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs. In addition, many states have adopted laws similar to the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Some of these state prohibitions apply to the referral of patients for healthcare services reimbursed by any insurer, not just federal healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Due to the breadth of these federal and state anti-kickback laws, and the potential for additional legal or regulatory change in this area, it is possible that our future business activities, including our sales and marketing practices and/or our future relationships with physicians and the medical community might be challenged under anti-kickback laws, which could harm us.

Federal false claims and false statement laws, including the civil False Claims Act, prohibits any person or entity from, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, for payment to federal programs (including Medicare and Medicaid) claims for items or services, including drugs, that are false or fraudulent. Although we would not submit claims directly to payors, manufacturers can be held liable under these laws if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims by, for example, providing inaccurate billing or coding information to customers or promoting a product off-label. In addition, our future activities relating to the reporting of wholesaler or estimated retail prices for our products, the reporting of prices used to calculate Medicaid rebate information and other information affecting federal, state, and third-party reimbursement for our products, and the sale and marketing of our products, are subject to scrutiny under this law. For example, pharmaceutical companies have been found liable under the Federal Civil False Claims Act in connection with their off-label promotion of drugs. Penalties for a civil False Claims Act violation include three times the actual damages sustained by the government, plus mandatory civil penalties for each separate false claim, the potential for exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs, and, although the Federal False Claims Act is a civil statute, conduct that results in a False Claims Act violation may also implicate various federal criminal statutes. If the government were to allege that we were, or convict us of, violating these false claims laws, we could be subject to a substantial fine and may suffer a decline in our stock price. In addition, private individuals have the ability to bring actions under the Federal Civil False Claims Act and certain states have enacted laws modeled after the Federal False Claims Act.

Additionally, HIPAA created additional federal criminal statutes that prohibit, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing, or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services.

Table of Contents

There are also an increasing number of state laws that require manufacturers to make reports to states on pricing and marketing information. Many of these laws contain ambiguities as to what is required to comply with the laws. In addition, as discussed below, a similar federal requirement under the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, requires certain manufacturers to track and report to the federal government certain payments provided to physicians and teaching hospitals made in the previous calendar year, as well as certain ownership and investment interests held by physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists, and chiropractors) and their immediate family members. These laws may affect our sales, marketing, and other promotional activities by imposing administrative and compliance burdens on us. In addition, given the lack of clarity with respect to these laws and their implementation, our reporting actions could be subject to the penalty provisions of the pertinent state and federal authorities. Effective January 1, 2022, these reporting obligations will extend to include transfers of value made to certain non-physician providers such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners.

In addition, we may be subject to data privacy and security regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, and their respective implementing regulations, including the Final Omnibus Rule published on January 25, 2013, imposes specified requirements relating to the privacy, security, and transmission of individually identifiable health information on certain types of individuals and organizations. In addition, certain state laws govern the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other and from HIPAA in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts.

The failure to comply with regulatory requirements subjects us to possible legal or regulatory action. Depending on the circumstances, failure to meet applicable regulatory requirements can result in significant criminal, civil and/or administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, injunctions, recall or seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, denial or withdrawal of product approvals, refusal to allow us to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts, contractual damages, reputational harm, administrative burdens, diminished profits and future earnings, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

We plan to develop a comprehensive compliance program that establishes internal controls to facilitate adherence to the law and program requirements to which we will or may become subject because we intend to commercialize products that could be reimbursed under a federal healthcare program and other governmental healthcare programs.

Changes in law or the interpretation of existing law could impact our business in the future by requiring, for example: (i) changes to our manufacturing arrangements; (ii) additions or modifications to product labeling; (iii) the recall or discontinuation of our products; or (iv) additional record-keeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the operation of our business.

European Regulation

In Europe, our products will also be subject to extensive regulatory requirements. As in the United States, medicinal products can only be marketed if a marketing authorization from the competent regulatory agencies has been obtained, and the various phases of preclinical and clinical research in the EU are subject to significant regulatory controls. Although the EU Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC (the “EU Clinical Trials Directive”) had sought to harmonize the EU clinical trial regulatory framework, setting out common rules for the control and authorization of clinical trials in the EU, the EU Member States have transposed and applied the provisions of the Directive differently. This has led to some significant variations in the Member State regimes. Under the current regime, before a clinical trial can be initiated it must be approved by two distinct bodies in each of the EU countries where the trial is to be conducted: The National Competent Authority (“NCA”) and one or more Ethics Committees (“ECs”). In addition, all suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions to the investigated drug that occur during the clinical trial must be reported to the NCA and ECs of the Member State where they occurred.

The EU Clinical Trial Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 536/2014) (the “EU Clinical Trial Regulation”) will repeal the EU Clinical Trials Directive when it becomes applicable. It is expected that the EU Clinical Trials Regulation will come into effect following confirmation of full functionality of the Clinical Trials Information System, the centralized EU portal and database for clinical trials foreseen by the EU Clinical Trials Regulation, through an independent audit, which is currently expected to occur in December 2021. The EU Clinical Trial Regulation is aimed at making more uniform and streamlining the clinical trials authorization process, simplifying adverse event reporting procedures, improving the supervision of clinical trials, and increasing the transparency of clinical trials. For instance, the EU Clinical Trials Regulation provides for a streamlined application procedure via a single-entry point and strictly defined deadlines for the assessment of clinical trial applications.

Healthcare Legislative Reform

In both the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the health care system that could impact our ability to sell our products profitably. In particular, in 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively, the ACA, was enacted, which, among other things, subjected biologic products to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars; addressed a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected; increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by most manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program; extended the Medicaid Drug Rebate program to utilization of prescriptions of individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations; subjected manufacturers to new annual fees and taxes for certain branded prescription drugs; created a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 50% (increased to 70% pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, effective as of January 1, 2019) point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D; and provided incentives to programs that increase the federal government’s comparative effectiveness research.

Table of Contents

Since its enactment, there have been numerous judicial, administrative, executive, and legislative challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future. Various portions of the ACA are currently undergoing legal and constitutional challenges in the United States Supreme Court A; the Trump Administration issued various Executive Orders which eliminated cost sharing subsidies and various provisions that would impose a fiscal burden on states or a cost, fee, tax, penalty or regulatory burden on individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices; and Congress has introduced several pieces of legislation aimed at significantly revising or repealing the ACA. The United States Supreme Court is expected to rule on a legal challenge to the constitutionality of the ACA in early 2021. The implementation of the ACA is ongoing, the law appears likely to continue the downward pressure on pharmaceutical pricing, especially under the Medicare program, and may also increase our regulatory burdens and operating costs. Litigation and legislation related to the ACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results. It is unclear whether the ACA will be overturned, repealed, replaced, or further amended. We cannot predict what affect further changes to the ACA would have on our business.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, President Obama signed into law the Budget Control Act of 2011, which, among other things, created the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to recommend to Congress proposals for deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021. The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction did not achieve a targeted deficit reduction, which triggered the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of, up to 2% per fiscal year, and, due to subsequent legislative amendments, will remain in effect through 2030 unless Congress takes additional action. However, the Medicare sequester reductions under the Budget Control Act are suspended from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Proposed legislation, if passed, would extend this suspension until the end of the pandemic. In January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

We expect that the healthcare reform measures that have been adopted and may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product and could seriously harm our future revenues. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private third-party payors.

There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the foreign, federal, and state levels directed at broadening the availability of healthcare and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our product. Such reforms could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenue from product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop product candidates.

Drug Review and Approval

In the European Economic Area (“EEA”), which is comprised of the EU Member States plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, medicinal products can only be commercialized after obtaining a marketing authorization. There are two types of marketing authorizations: (1) the centralized authorization, which is issued by the European Commission through the centralized procedure based on the opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (“CHMP”), a body of the EMA, and which is valid throughout the entire territory of the EEA; and (2) national marketing authorizations, which is issued by the competent authorities of the Member States of the EEA and only authorize marketing in that Member State’s national territory and not the EEA as a whole.

RCKT US Equity

RCKT · 10-K · period ended 2020-12-31

Item 1. Business

RCKT US Equity☆

RCKT · 10-K · period ended 2020-12-31

Item 1. Business

RCKT US Equity