Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2021

For the Transition Period from to

Commission File Number: 001-38501

SCHOLAR ROCK HOLDING CORPORATION

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

(State or Other Jurisdiction of (I.R.S. Employer

Incorporation or Organization) Identification Number)

301 Binney Street, 3rd Floor

Cambridge, MA02142

(857) 259-3860

(Address, Including Zip Code, and Telephone Number, Including Area Code, of Registrant’s Principal Executive Offices)

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

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

Common Stock, par value $0.001 per share SRRK The Nasdaq Global Select Market

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

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

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

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, 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 ☒

As of June 30, 2021, the last day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, the aggregate market value of the Common Stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $531.8 million based on the closing price of the registrant’s common stock on June 30, 2021. The calculation excludes shares of the registrant’s common stock held by current executive officers, directors and stockholders that the registrant has concluded are affiliates of the registrant. This determination of affiliate status is not a determination for other purposes.

As of March 2, 2022, there were 35,297,455 shares of common stock outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement for its 2022 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, which the registrant intends to file pursuant to Regulation 14A with the Securities and Exchange Commission not later than 120 days after the registrant’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS 3

PART I 5

Item 1. Business 5

Item 1A. Risk Factors 59

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments 108

Item 2. Properties 108

Item 3. Legal Proceedings 108

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures 108

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk 123

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data 123

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures 123

Item 9B. Other Information 124

Item 9C. Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections 124

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance 125

Item 11. Executive Compensation 125

Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services 125

Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules 126

Table of Contents

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K (“Annual Report”), including the documents incorporated by reference, contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws, Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. We intend these forward-looking statements to be covered by the safe harbor provisions for forward-looking statements contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and are including this statement for purposes of complying with those safe harbor provisions. All statements other than statements of historical facts contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are forward-looking statements. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may”, “will”, “should”, “expects”, “intends”, “plans”, “anticipates”, “believes”, “estimates”, “predicts”, “potential”, “continue” or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology. Some of the risks and uncertainties that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to differ materially from those expressed or implied by forward-looking statements include, among others, the following:

Table of Contents

● our ability to obtain additional funding when necessary;

● our expectations related to the use of our cash reserves;

● developments and projections relating to our competitors and our industry;

The risks set forth above are not exhaustive. Other sections of this report may include additional factors that could adversely affect our business and financial performance. Moreover, we operate in a very competitive and rapidly changing environment. New risk factors emerge from time to time and it is not possible for management to predict all risk factors, nor can we assess the impact of all risk factors on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements. Given these risks and uncertainties, investors should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements as a prediction of actual results. Investors should also refer to our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K and our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for future periods and Current Reports on Form 8-K as we file them with the SEC, and to other materials we may furnish to the public from time to time through Current Reports on Form 8-K or otherwise, for a discussion of risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results, performance or achievements to differ materially from those expressed or implied by forward-looking statements. We expressly disclaim any responsibility to update any forward-looking statements to reflect changes in underlying assumptions or factors, new information, future events, or otherwise, and you should not rely upon these forward-looking statements after the date of this report.

We may from time to time provide estimates, projections and other information concerning our industry, the general business environment, and the markets for certain diseases, including estimates regarding the potential size of those markets and the estimated 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, circumstances or numbers, including actual disease prevalence rates and market size, may differ materially from the information reflected in this Annual Report. Unless otherwise expressly stated, we obtained this industry data, business information, market data, prevalence information 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, in some cases applying our own assumptions and analysis that may, in the future, prove not to have been accurate.

Table of Contents

PART I

Item 1. Business

Overview

We are a biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery and development of innovative medicines for the treatment of serious diseases in which signaling by protein growth factors plays a fundamental role. Our novel understanding of the molecular mechanisms of growth factor activation enabled us to develop a proprietary platform for the discovery and development of monoclonal antibodies that locally and selectively target the precursor, or latent, forms of growth factors. By targeting the signaling proteins at the cellular level and acting in the disease microenvironment, we believe we may avoid the historical dose-limiting safety challenges associated with inhibiting growth factors for therapeutic effect. We believe our focus on biologically validated growth factors may facilitate a more efficient development path.

We have a productive scientific platform and are building our portfolio of novel product candidates with the aim of transforming the lives of patients suffering from a wide range of serious diseases, including neuromuscular disorders, cancer, and fibrosis. We have discovered and progressed the development of:

Our first product candidate, apitegromab (formerly SRK-015), is a highly selective, fully human, monoclonal antibody, with a unique mechanism of action that results in inhibition of the activation of the growth factor, myostatin, in skeletal muscle. Apitegromab is being developed as a potential first muscle-directed therapy for the treatment of SMA. We are conducting SAPPHIRE, a pivotal Phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of apitegromab in patients with non-ambulatory Type 2 and Type 3 SMA (which is estimated to represent the majority of the current prevalent SMA patient population in the U.S. and Europe). Apitegromab was evaluated in our TOPAZ Phase 2 proof-of-concept clinical trial for the treatment of patients with Type 2 and Type 3 SMA. Positive 12-month top-line results were announced in April 2021 showing apitegromab’s transformative potential (see “TOPAZ Phase 2 Trial Analysis” below). The FDA granted fast track designation, rare pediatric disease designation and orphan drug designation to apitegromab for the treatment of SMA in May 2021, August 2020 and March 2018, respectively. The European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) granted PRIority MEdicines (“PRIME”) designation in March 2021 and the EC granted orphan medicinal product designation in December 2018 to apitegromab for the treatment of SMA.

Our second product candidate, SRK-181, is being developed for the treatment of cancers that are resistant to checkpoint inhibitor therapies (“CPI therapies”), such as anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 antibody therapies. SRK-181 is a highly selective inhibitor of the activation of latent TGFβ1 that is being investigated in our DRAGON Phase 1 proof-of-concept clinical trial in patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors that exhibit primary resistance to anti-PD-(L)1 antibodies. This two-part clinical trial consists of a dose escalation portion (Part A) and a dose expansion portion evaluating SRK-181 in combination with an approved anti-PD-(L)1 antibody therapy (Part B). Part B encompasses five cohorts, including urothelial carcinoma, cutaneous melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Table of Contents

and other solid tumors and commenced in 2021. Initial clinical data from Part A were presented in November 2021 at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (“SITC”) 36th Annual Meeting.

Beyond these programs, we continue to discover and develop highly specific monoclonal antibodies to selectively modulate growth factor signaling. Growth factors are naturally occurring proteins that typically act as signaling molecules between cells and play a fundamental role in regulating a variety of normal cellular processes, including cell growth and differentiation. Current therapeutic approaches to treating diseases in which growth factors play a fundamental role involve directly targeting the active form of the growth factor or its receptor systemically throughout the body. These approaches have suffered from a variety of shortcomings, including lack of pathway selectivity, lack of target selectivity, and non-localized target inhibition.

Our innovative approach is rooted in our structural biology insights into the mechanism by which certain growth factors are activated in close proximity to the cell surface. We integrate these insights with sophisticated protein expression, assay development and monoclonal antibody discovery capabilities. We believe our proprietary platform can address the challenges of treating diseases in which growth factors play a fundamental role by:

Our structural insights and unique antibody discovery capabilities can be applied to other protein classes beyond growth factors, with an aim of generating differentiated candidates targeting cell surface receptors such as immune cell receptors or G-protein coupled receptors, where selectivity remains challenging.

Our Approach and Proprietary Platform

Our innovative approach is rooted in our novel understanding of the molecular mechanisms of growth factor activation and signaling and is designed to discover and develop monoclonal antibody product candidates that can inhibit the activation of a growth factor with an unprecedented degree of selectivity. Our proprietary platform is designed to generate product candidates that target the growth factor’s latent precursor form prior to its activation within the disease microenvironment, or tissue where it is localized, and would normally signal upon activation.

Growth factors are naturally occurring proteins that typically act as signaling molecules between cells and play a fundamental role in regulating a variety of normal cellular processes. Members of the TGFβ superfamily of growth factors, for example, can mediate diverse biological functions, including cell growth and differentiation, tissue homeostasis, immune modulation and extracellular matrix remodeling. Growth factors have also been shown to play a fundamental role in a variety of disease processes. Because of the importance of growth factors in multiple diseases, the pharmaceutical industry has made many attempts to inhibit growth factors in a variety of therapeutic settings. However, products utilizing conventional approaches have seen only limited success. Current therapeutic approaches to treating diseases in which growth factors play a fundamental role involve directly targeting an activated growth factor or its receptor systemically throughout the body and have suffered from a variety of shortcomings:

Table of Contents

Our approach to the discovery and development of growth factor targeted drugs is fundamentally new and different from traditional approaches. Our approach of targeting the precursor, or latent forms of growth factors is based on the breakthrough discovery by the laboratory of our cofounder, Timothy A. Springer, Ph.D. of Harvard Medical School and Boston Children’s Hospital.

Unlike many other proteins that are produced and secreted by cells in a mature, or active, form, many growth factors are expressed by cells in a latent form. For example, TGFβ1 is produced by cells as a single protein which is then enzymatically processed by the cells into two distinct and physically separated domains — the mature growth factor and the remaining portion of the original protein, referred to as the prodomain — which remain associated as part of a complex. This secreted complex is latent, or inactive, and must first be activated to carry out its normal function in a highly localized tissue or disease microenvironment. In a seminal peer-reviewed publication in 2011, Dr. Springer elucidated a new understanding of the mechanism of activation of the latent growth factor complex among members of the TGFβ superfamily by solving a high resolution x-ray crystal structure of this latent form of TGFβ1 (as illustrated in the graphic below).

Structural representation of the latent form of TGFβ1

wherein the prodomain wraps around the active growth factor

This research explained at a molecular level why the secreted form of TGFβ1 is inactive. The prodomain, though physically separated from the mature growth factor domain, forms a “cage” around the active form of TGFβ1, blocking the growth factor from signaling through its receptor. Only when the cage is “unlocked” by a precursor activation event can the growth factor be released and mediate its effects in the local microenvironment. Dr. Springer further hypothesized that this phenomenon likely holds true for most members of the TGFβ superfamily, though the exact nature of the activation event, such as integrin binding or enzymatic cleavage, may differ among members of the superfamily. Importantly, while many growth factors are structurally very similar, their cages are structurally diverse, and this provides the basis for our approach to improved selectivity.

Table of Contents

We believe that there are several important advantages to our approach of targeting the precursor, or latent, forms of growth factors over conventional therapeutic approaches, which inhibit mature growth factors or their receptors systemically throughout the body:

To enable our novel approach, we have built a proprietary platform that is rooted in our structural biology insights into activation of latent growth factor precursors. We integrate these insights with sophisticated protein expression, assay development and monoclonal antibody discovery capabilities. In addition to such know-how, our proprietary platform is covered by two patent families, with issued patents projected to expire well into the 2030s, excluding any patent term adjustments or extensions. The key elements of our proprietary platform include the following:

Table of Contents

Using our innovative approach and proprietary platform, we are creating a pipeline of novel product candidates that selectively modulate the activation of growth factors implicated in a variety of serious diseases. Our structural insights and unique antibody discovery capabilities can also be applied to other protein classes beyond growth factors, with an aim of generating differentiated candidates targeting cell surface receptors such as immune cell receptors or G-protein coupled receptors, where selectivity remains challenging.

Our Expertise

We have assembled an experienced management team, board of directors, scientific founders and advisory board who bring extensive industry experience to our company. The members of our team have deep experience in discovering, developing and commercializing therapeutics, having worked at companies such as: Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Avila Therapeutics, Inc.; Dyax Corp.; AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc; Ocata Therapeutics, Inc; Foundation Medicine, Inc.; Merck; and Pfizer Inc. We were founded by internationally respected scientists, Drs. Timothy A. Springer and Leonard I. Zon of Harvard Medical School and Boston Children’s Hospital.

Our Strategy

Using our proprietary platform to unlock the therapeutic potential of targeting growth factor signaling in the disease microenvironment, our goal is to deliver novel therapies to underserved patients suffering from a wide range of serious diseases, including neuromuscular disorders, cancer and fibrosis. To achieve this goal, we plan to:

Table of Contents

Our Pipeline

Using our innovative approach and proprietary platform, we are creating a differentiated pipeline of novel product candidates that selectively inhibit the activation of latent growth factors believed to be important drivers in a variety of diseases, including neuromuscular disorders, cancer and fibrosis. Our proprietary platform includes (i) our know-how enabling expression and purification of latent protein growth factor complexes in quantity and quality sufficient to enable antibody discovery; (ii) strategies to identify rare antibodies that selectively bind targeted latent protein growth factor complexes using our own proprietary antibody libraries; and (iii) assays developed by us in which to test the highly selective antibodies’ ability to modulate the activation of specific latent growth factors. We have worldwide rights to our proprietary platform and all of our product candidates, with the exception of certain early-stage antibodies that specifically inhibit the activation of TGFβ1 in the context of regulatory T cells, which we licensed to Janssen.

The following summarizes our pipeline programs:

Our Product Candidates and Additional Programs

Apitegromab — Our Inhibitor of Latent Myostatin Activation for SMA

We are developing apitegromab, a novel, highly selective inhibitor of the activation of the growth factor myostatin, as a potential first muscle-directed therapy for the treatment of SMA. Myostatin, a member of the TGFβ superfamily of growth factors, is expressed primarily in skeletal muscle cells and the absence of its gene is associated with an increase in muscle mass and strength in multiple animal species. We believe that inhibition of the activation of myostatin may promote a clinically meaningful increase in motor function.

In preclinical studies, we have shown that apitegromab selectively avoids interaction with other closely related growth factors that play distinct physiological roles. We observed multi-fold increases in serum latent myostatin levels in mouse models of both early and late SMN restoration and that apitegromab promoted increased strength (as measured by torque generation) in SMN-deficient mice. In a Phase 1 clinical trial designed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic (“PK”) /pharmacodynamic (“PD”) profile of apitegromab in adult healthy volunteers, there were no dose-limiting toxicities and robust and sustained target engagement following administration of apitegromab was observed. Apitegromab was evaluated in our TOPAZ Phase 2 proof-of-concept clinical trial for the treatment of patients

Table of Contents

with Type 2 and Type 3 SMA and positive 12-month top-line results were announced in April 2021 showing apitegromab’s transformative potential. See “TOPAZ Phase 2 Trial Analysis” below. We are currently conducting SAPPHIRE, a pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of apitegromab in patients with non-ambulatory Type 2 and Type 3 SMA receiving background SMN upregulator treatment.

We believe that apitegromab has the potential to be the first muscle-directed therapy, which is aimed at improving motor function in patients with SMA and could be used in conjunction with SMN upregulator therapies or as a monotherapy. We have identified multiple other diseases for which the selective inhibition of the activation of myostatin may offer therapeutic benefit, including additional patient populations in SMA (such as Type 1 SMA and ambulatory SMA) and indications outside of SMA.

Background on SMA

SMA is a rare, and often fatal, genetic disorder that typically manifests in young children. It is characterized by the loss of motor neurons, atrophy of the voluntary muscles of the limbs and trunk and progressive muscle weakness. Disease severity in SMA can range from patients who die soon after birth to patients who live into adulthood with varying degrees of morbidity. The underlying pathology of SMA is caused by insufficient production of a protein known as “survival of motor neuron,” or SMN. The SMN protein, essential for the survival of motor neurons, is encoded by two genes, SMN1 and SMN2.

SMA Natural History and Epidemiology

SMA, the most common monogenic cause of death in infants, is a rare neuromuscular disorder. An estimated 30,000 to 35,000 patients suffer from SMA in the U.S. and Europe alone. Patients with SMA can be categorized as one of four types, Type 1 through Type 4. Approximately 85% of SMA patients currently living in the U.S. and Europe are estimated as having Type 2 or Type 3 disease, although it should be noted that this percentage may evolve over time. Type 2 and Type 3 SMA will be the initial focus of investigation in the development program.

Table of Contents

Unmet Medical Need in SMA

We view the emerging landscape for the development of novel medicines for SMA as being classified into two distinct but complementary therapeutic strategies: 1) SMN upregulator therapy (or also known as SMN corrector therapy, SMN-directed therapy or SMN therapy) and 2) muscle-directed therapy. Despite progress in the development of SMN upregulator therapies, a high unmet medical need to improve motor function remains. We believe that the advancement of muscle-directed therapy will be necessary to address this important gap.

SMN upregulator therapies are aimed at addressing the SMN deficiency to prevent further motor neuron deterioration. This category includes antisense oligonucleotide and small molecule approaches to increase SMN2 expression as well as gene therapy to deliver the SMN1 gene. The primary benefit of such an approach appears to be to address the SMN deficiency and to modify the course of disease. Early intervention at a very young age is therefore thought to be essential to prevent significant motor functional deterioration. However, for the vast majority of SMA patients living today, this early intervention window has been missed, and such individuals suffer from severe functional impairment. Thus, regardless of the precise nature or mechanism of action for any given SMN upregulator therapy, we believe that most SMA patients will continue to experience clinically significant functional deficits.

To address this need, apitegromab is being developed as a potential first muscle-directed therapy for SMA. We envision the potential for apitegromab to be a critical complement to any SMN upregulator therapy in patients with Type 2 and 3 SMA in order to drive absolute increases in functional performance over baseline. We also view apitegromab as having potential in the treatment of Type 1 SMA as well as presymptomatic SMA in conjunction with SMN upregulator therapy. Our vision is that apitegromab has the potential to become the backbone treatment for the broadest group of patients with SMA.

Myostatin in SMA and Challenges with Traditional Approaches

Apitegromab is a highly selective inhibitor of the activation of latent myostatin that acts locally within skeletal muscle. Myostatin, also known as growth differentiation factor 8 (“GDF8”), is a member of the TGFβ superfamily and is produced by skeletal muscle cells. As with other tissues and organs in the human body, healthy muscle homeostasis is maintained by a proper balance of growth signals, or anabolic stimuli, and breakdown signals, or catabolic stimuli. In humans, the anabolic stimuli that drive muscle growth are proteins, such as the human growth hormone and the insulin-like growth factor 1. In contrast, myostatin is a catabolic agent that functions as a negative regulator of muscle mass.

Skeletal muscle fibers are generally classified as fast-twitch or slow-twitch. Fast-twitch fibers play a key role in motor activities, such as those involving quick bursts of strength. In contrast, slow-twitch fibers are important for endurance activities. Animals lacking functional myostatin genes, or its receptor, have larger muscles and increased strength compared to normal animals. While the absence of myostatin does lead to overall increases in muscle mass, a preferential effect on muscles enriched for fast-twitch muscle fibers has been observed in animals. Such animals are otherwise healthy and live a normal life-span.

Because of its role in regulating muscle mass, myostatin has been a popular target for a variety of drug development programs. There have been two general approaches to trying to inhibit the signaling of myostatin in humans. The first is to develop an antibody, or an antibody-like molecule, that binds to mature myostatin in circulation and prevents its ability to signal through its receptor, the ActRIIb receptor. The second is to develop an antibody to the ActRIIb receptor itself, or a soluble decoy of the ActRIIb receptor, with a goal of preventing myostatin signaling through its receptor. Both of these approaches, however, have significant limitations.

As a member of the TGFβ superfamily, mature myostatin shares considerable structural similarity with other family members. For example, the active form of myostatin and its most closely related family member, GDF11, are 90% identical in the growth factor domains, making it extremely challenging to identify antibodies that are truly specific for myostatin and do not interfere with other targets. Moreover, attempts to interrupt myostatin signaling through its receptor are complicated by the fact that the ActRIIb receptor, in addition to being the receptor for myostatin, is also the receptor for a number of related family members, including GDF11, activins and other growth factors. Attempts to block

Table of Contents

the signaling of myostatin by targeting its receptor therefore inevitably interfere with the signaling of these other growth factors, many of which are involved in normal biological processes unrelated to muscle.

There are multiple examples of clinical trials demonstrating the risk of non-selective inhibition of myostatin. For example, in a Phase 2 clinical trial in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy reported in 2017, a soluble decoy of the ActRIIb receptor resulted in bleeding side effects believed by the sponsor to be unrelated to inhibition of myostatin signaling, but instead related to the inhibition of signaling by certain other members of the TGFβ superfamily known to be important in the maintenance of vascular integrity. These side effects resulted in termination of the clinical program. More recently, results from a clinical trial were reported showing that treatment of patients with an antibody to the ActRIIb receptor resulted in suppression of the levels of follicle stimulating hormone, an important reproductive hormone. In this clinical trial, the sponsor believed that these effects were likely related to inhibition of signaling through the ActRIIb receptor.

Our Solution

Utilizing our proprietary platform, we targeted the precursor form of myostatin and generated apitegromab, a novel, highly selective inhibitor of the activation of myostatin from its inactive precursor in skeletal muscles, where myostatin resides and signals upon activation. While mature myostatin is 90% identical in the growth factor domain to its most closely related TGFβ superfamily member, GDF11, the prodomain that cages mature myostatin and keeps it in its latent precursor form is only 52% identical to the GDF11 prodomain. In preclinical studies, we observed that apitegromab bound to latent myostatin with a high level of selectivity, while having no binding to, and no effect on, the activation of related TGFβ family members.

We believe that the therapeutic potential for apitegromab in improving motor function is more optimal when a given disease bears certain features. Based on our translational and preclinical efforts, we have formulated a set of guiding principles to inform indication selection within the category of neuromuscular disease. As summarized in the table below, we believe that the pathobiological and clinical characteristics of SMA are well-aligned with these guiding principles. Since myostatin regulates muscle catabolism rather than anabolism, we believe that having a background of anabolic capacity is important to drive muscle growth in the setting of myostatin inhibition. Anabolic capacity is most robust in younger individuals and diminishes as one ages. SMA is a genetic disorder with onset commonly in childhood, and the initial focus of the development program will be in children and young adults. Furthermore, in SMA, there is a significant but incomplete loss of motor neurons, ensuring at least some intact signaling between skeletal muscle and nerve. In addition, generally, there are also no apparent structural abnormalities in the skeletal muscle. The partial loss of motor neurons causes substantial atrophy of fast-twitch muscle fibers that in turn leads to many of the motor function impairments. Validated outcome measures are available for SMA clinical trials that are relevant to fast-twitch fiber activity. These outcome measures, such as the HFMSE, assess a large number of motor activities that involve short-term bursts of strength, which are driven by fast-twitch muscle fibers. These endpoints therefore measure an outcome that may be more likely to be directly affected by apitegromab.

Table of Contents

Key disease features of SMA are aligned with Scholar Rock’s guiding principles for neuromuscular indication selection for apitegromab

Clinical Development Overview

We are currently conducting SAPPHIRE, a pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of apitegromab in patients with non-ambulatory Type 2 and Type 3 SMA being treated with background SMN upregulator therapy.

Beyond Type 2 and Type 3 SMA, we believe that apitegromab has the potential to contribute an important therapeutic benefit to patients with either more or less severe forms of SMA as well as pre-symptomatic patients receiving early intervention with a SMN upregulator therapy.

Our aim is to develop apitegromab for the broadest group of patients suffering from SMA. The FDA granted fast track designation, rare pediatric disease designation and orphan drug designation to apitegromab for the treatment of SMA in May 2021, August 2020 and March 2018, respectively. The EMA granted PRIME designation in March 2021 and the EC granted orphan medicinal product designation in December 2018 to apitegromab for the treatment of SMA.

SAPPHIRE Phase 3 Pivotal Trial Design

SAPPHIRE is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase 3 clinical trial. Approximately 156 patients aged 2-12 years old with non-ambulatory Type 2 or Type 3 SMA are anticipated to be enrolled in the main efficacy population. Patients will be randomized 1:1:1 to receive for 12 months either apitegromab 10 mg/kg, apitegromab 20 mg/kg, or placebo by intravenous (IV) infusion every 4 weeks in addition to background SMN treatment. Patients receiving the background SMN treatment of nusinersen as well as patients receiving background SMN treatment of risdiplam will both be eligible for enrollment.

Additional key elements of the study design include the following:

Table of Contents

In addition, this clinical trial provides the opportunity for an interim analysis when at least 50% of patients in the main efficacy population (age 2-12 years) have completed 12 months of treatment.

Separately from the main efficacy population, an exploratory population of 48 patients aged 13-21 years old with non-ambulatory Type 2 or Type 3 SMA will be evaluated. These patients will be randomized 2:1 to receive either apitegromab 20 mg/kg or placebo added to background SMN treatment with nusinersen or risdiplam. In this subpopulation of older individuals with SMA, the safety and tolerability of apitegromab will be characterized, and efficacy will also be evaluated in an exploratory, nonpowered manner.

TOPAZ Phase 2 Proof-of-Concept Trial

We completed enrollment of 58 patients in our TOPAZ Phase 2 proof-of-concept trial of apitegromab in SMA in January 2020. One patient discontinued from the 12-month treatment period for reasons that were determined to be unrelated to apitegromab treatment. All remaining 57 patients completed the 12-month treatment period and opted into the extension period. As of February 2022, 55 of the patients remain enrolled.

The clinical trial consisted of three distinct cohorts of patients with Type 2 or Type 3 SMA and evaluated the safety and efficacy of apitegromab over a 12-month treatment period. All patients in the clinical trial received apitegromab dosed every four weeks (Q4W) either as a monotherapy or in conjunction with an approved SMN upregulator therapy.

In our view, this approach of having evaluated multiple distinct cohorts offers a greater number of opportunities to discern the effects of apitegromab on clinically meaningful motor function measures across multiple patient subpopulations. It is estimated that patients with Type 2 or Type 3 SMA represent over 85% of the overall patient population. We view each of the cohorts evaluated in the TOPAZ trial as representing a significant proportion of patients suffering from SMA.

The primary efficacy objectives evaluated in the TOPAZ trial, HFMSE and Revised Hammersmith Scale (“RHS”), are clinically meaningful outcome measures validated for SMA. These endpoints assess motor tasks involving short-term bursts of strength and thus involve fast-twitch fiber function. As the hypothesized effect of myostatin blockade under investigation is to drive increases in fast-twitch fiber function, we believe these endpoints are of direct relevance in assessing the clinical effect of apitegromab.

Our overall approach to the efficacy analysis is informed by SMA disease biology, the anticipated mechanism of action of apitegromab, the effects of SMN upregulators, and available clinical data on SMA. The primary effect of SMN upregulator therapy appears to be to address the SMN deficiency and to modify the disease course; thus, the key in preventing significant motor functional deterioration is intervening at a very young age. For most patients with SMA, however, this window for early intervention is no longer available. As a result, these individuals have already suffered considerable atrophy and motor function impairment. Natural history data indicate that most patients with Type 2 or 3 SMA, other than very young individuals, generally have a stable functional baseline over a 12-month period as evidenced by their HFMSE scores. A one-point improvement on the Hammersmith scale may be considered meaningful on an individual level and a spontaneous improvement of 3 or more points from one’s baseline would be a notable divergence from the otherwise expected course of disease for most patients.

TOPAZ Twelve-Month Analysis

On April 6, 2021, we announced positive top-line data for the 12-month treatment period of our TOPAZ Phase 2 proof-of-concept trial, which enrolled 58 patients with Type 2 and Type 3 SMA across 16 study sites in the United States and

Table of Contents

Europe. The clinical trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of intravenous apitegromab dosed every four weeks (Q4W) over a 12-month treatment period. Four patients (one in Cohort 2 and three in Cohort 3) each missed three consecutive doses of apitegromab over the course of the 12-month treatment period due to COVID-19-related site access restrictions and were excluded from the prespecified intent-to-treat primary analysis.

Cohort 1: This open-label, single-arm cohort enrolled 23 patients with ambulatory Type 3 SMA. Patients were treated with 20 mg/kg of apitegromab either as a monotherapy or in conjunction with an approved SMN upregulator therapy (nusinersen). The primary objectives of Cohort 1 were to assess safety and the mean change from baseline in RHS following 12 months of treatment.

Cohort 2: This open-label, single-arm cohort enrolled 15 patients with Type 2 or non-ambulatory Type 3 SMA and who were already receiving treatment with an approved SMN upregulator (nusinersen) initiated at age five years or older. One patient missed three consecutive doses of apitegromab due to COVID-19-related site access restrictions and was excluded from the prespecified intent-to-treat primary analysis. The primary objectives of the cohort were to assess safety and the mean change from baseline in HFMSE following 12 months of treatment.

One patient in Cohort 2 was identified as having received concomitant treatment with an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor before and during the study, which was not permitted by the trial protocol. This patient experienced a 7-point decline in HFMSE score at the 12-month timepoint. In the per protocol analysis conducted in accordance with the prespecified approach, which excludes this patient as well as the patient who missed three consecutive doses due to COVID-19-related site access restrictions, the mean change from baseline in HFMSE score for Cohort 2 was a 1.2-point improvement.

Cohort 3: This randomized, double-blind, parallel arm portion of the clinical trial enrolled patients with Type 2 SMA who had initiated treatment with an approved SMN upregulator (nusinersen) before five years of age. Twenty patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive the low dose (apitegromab 2 mg /kg Q4W) or high dose (apitegromab 20 mg/kg Q4W); both treatment arms were in conjunction with an approved SMN upregulator therapy (nusinersen). Three

Table of Contents

patients (two in high-dose arm and one in low-dose arm) each missed three consecutive doses of apitegromab due to COVID-19-related site access restrictions and were excluded from the prespecified intent-to-treat primary analysis. The primary objectives of the cohort were to assess safety and the mean change from baseline in HFMSE following 12 months of treatment.

Dose response was observed; the 20 mg/kg dose achieved numerically greater mean improvements from baseline in HFMSE scores than the 2 mg/kg dose across all assessed timepoints in the 12-month treatment period. The clinically observed dose response was consistent with the pharmacodynamic (target engagement) results. Both the 20 mg/kg and 2 mg/kg doses yielded high levels of target engagement (>100-fold increase from baseline), but the 20 mg/kg dose led to a relatively higher absolute level of target engagement.

Overall safety and tolerability profile:

Table of Contents

From June to October 2021, we announced supportive data from additional exploratory analyses from the TOPAZ Phase 2 clinical trial at various medical congresses, including the Cure SMA virtual conference, the World Muscle Society virtual congress, the Child Neurology Society annual meeting, and the World Congress of Neurology. We believe these exploratory analyses further demonstrate the potential of apitegromab in patients with SMA:

● Increases in RULM were also observed in both non-ambulatory cohorts.

Phase 1 Healthy Volunteer Clinical Trial Results

The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, first-in-human, Phase 1 clinical trial was designed to evaluate the safety and tolerability, immunogenicity, PK, and PD of IV administered apitegromab in adult healthy volunteers. A total of 66 subjects were enrolled, including 40 subjects in the single ascending dose (“SAD”) and 26 subjects in the multiple ascending dose (“MAD”) portions of the study. Full results from the Phase 1 clinical trial were presented at the Cure SMA Annual Conference in June 2019.

Safety and immunogenicity results. Apitegromab was shown to be well-tolerated with no apparent safety signals. There were no dose-limiting toxicities identified up to the highest tested dose of 30 mg/kg, treatment-related serious adverse events (“SAEs”) or hypersensitivity reactions. Immunogenicity was assessed by anti-drug antibody testing, and all subjects tested negative.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics results. Apitegromab displayed a PK profile generally consistent with that commonly observed with monoclonal antibodies. Drug exposure was dose proportional, and the serum half-life was approximately 23 to 33 days across the apitegromab dose groups. The findings supported the investigation of a once every 4-week dosing regimen in the TOPAZ Phase 2 clinical trial.

Mean serum concentrations of latent myostatin in the SAD were < 20 ng/ml in the pre-treatment baselines for apitegromab treated subjects as well as in placebo subjects throughout the study. Following placebo treatment, there was no meaningful change in the latent myostatin biomarker concentrations. Following single doses of apitegromab at dose levels of 3 mg/kg or greater, marked increases in latent myostatin biomarker concentrations in the serum, by at least an order of magnitude, were observed following apitegromab treatment. This finding demonstrates successful target engagement and provides initial proof-of-mechanism in humans of our therapeutic approach of targeting the latent form of growth factors. The observation also corroborates our biological understanding that the vast majority of drug target (pro and latent forms of myostatin) resides within skeletal muscle rather than within the systemic circulation.

Table of Contents

Apitegromab engages latent myostatin in Phase 1 clinical trial subjects

Apitegromab in Other Myostatin-Related Disorders

We see potential for apitegromab broadly across SMA (i.e., Type 1 SMA and ambulatory SMA) and our intention is to further investigate this potential. We also believe that the role of apitegromab as a muscle-directed therapy has broad potential beyond SMA, spanning a number of muscle disorders in which fast-twitch fibers may play an important role in motor function. In some settings, we believe that disease-stabilizing therapy may be necessary to address the underlying defect, which can then be complemented by the potential motor function-building benefit of apitegromab. In settings in which the defect may be less severe and/or the disease may have a slower rate of progression, apitegromab may have the potential to serve as a monotherapy.

There is also increasing recognition of the important role of skeletal muscle in modulating metabolic physiology, highlighting a potential therapeutic opportunity for myostatin blockade. For example, data emerging from our preclinical experiments support the hypothesis that blockade of the myostatin pathway has the potential to reduce the mass of visceral fat, a significant driver of cardiometabolic pathophysiology. Excessive fat mass and metabolic abnormalities have been observed in many muscle atrophy states, such as SMA and spinal cord injury. More broadly, reducing visceral fat mass, or improving body compositions (e.g., enhanced muscle-to-fat ratios), may be a potential therapeutic strategy to address a wide range of disorders, such as non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (“NASH”), diabetes, and obesity.

Based on this evidence, we believe a wide range of potential therapeutic applications may be envisioned for apitegromab. We are considering the investigation of apitegromab in multiple indications beyond SMA and have efforts underway to evaluate these opportunities (including preclinical and translational research, clinical development and regulatory path assessments, and commercial assessments).

Table of Contents

SRK-181 in Cancer Immunotherapy - Inhibitor of Latent TGFβ1 Activation

Our second antibody product candidate, SRK-181, a highly selective inhibitor of the activation of latent TGFβ1, is in clinical development for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors that are resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 therapies. We estimate at least 750,000 cancer patients in the US are eligible for treatment with checkpoint inhibitor therapies every year, of which the majority do not respond to treatment.

Increased signaling by TGFβ1 is a key driver of a number of disease-relevant processes, including immune system evasion by cancer cells, bone marrow fibrosis associated with hematological disorders, and tissue and organ fibrosis. Historically, selectively targeting TGFβ1 signaling has been challenging due to the inability of either small molecule inhibitors or antibodies to avoid off-target inhibition of other, closely related growth factors, TGFβ2 and TGFβ3. Treatment of animals with these non-selective TGFβ inhibitors has been associated with a range of toxicities, most notably cardiac toxicity. Furthermore, since each of these growth factors signals through the same TGFβ receptor, ALK5, inhibitors of the TGFβ receptor kinase suffer from similar dose-limiting toxicities. In preclinical studies of our antibodies, we have observed selective inhibition of TGFβ1 activation in vitro and immunomodulatory and antifibrotic activity in multiple disease models in vivo. A 28-day pilot nonclinical toxicology study in rats of our leading antibody did not observe any drug-related toxicity up to the highest dose (100 mg/kg weekly) tested in the study. In the same study, we tested non-selective TGFβ inhibitors and observed the published toxicities, including cardiac toxicity as well as death. We have also completed four-week GLP toxicology studies in rats and non-human primates and no SRK-181 related adverse effects were observed up to the highest evaluated dose of 200 mg/kg per week and 300 mg/kg per week, respectively.

In many human cancers, TGFβ signaling is associated with lack of response to PD-(L)1 blockade, particularly in patients with tumors harboring an immune excluded phenotype (i.e., CD8+ T cells present in nearby stroma but excluded from the tumor parenchyma). We have observed multiple mouse models that recapitulate the immune-excluded phenotype and are resistant to PD-1 blockade become responsive to the combination of SRK-181-mIgG1, the murine analog of SRK-181, and an anti- PD-1 antibody. These models, including the MBT-2 bladder cancer model, the Cloudman S91 melanoma model and the EMT6 breast cancer model, were poorly responsive or unresponsive to single agent treatment with either anti-PD-1 or SRK-181-mIgG1, with little or no effect on tumor growth. However, in representative experiments, the combination of SRK-181-mIgG1 and anti-PD-1 resulted in tumor regressions of 72%, 57% and 70% in these three mouse models, respectively. Furthermore, the combination treatment led to statistically significant survival benefit in all three models (See “Preclinical Evidence in Overcoming Resistance to Checkpoint Inhibition”).

Our DRAGON Phase 1 clinical trial is intended to initially evaluate our therapeutic hypothesis that SRK-181 in combination with anti-PD-(L)1 therapy may overcome primary resistance to anti-PD-(L)1 therapy and lead to anti-tumor responses. This clinical trial in patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors is ongoing and investigates the safety, PK and efficacy of SRK-181. The DRAGON trial consists of two parts: Part A (dose escalation of SRK-181 as a single-agent or in combination with an approved anti-PD-(L)1 therapy) and Part B (dose expansion evaluating SRK-181 in combination with an approved anti-PD-(L)1 antibody therapy). Part B encompasses five cohorts, including urothelial carcinoma, cutaneous melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, clear cell renal cell carcinoma and other solid tumors and commenced in 2021. Initial clinical data from Part A, primarily focused on safety and PK, was presented in November 2021 at the SITC 36th Annual Meeting.

Selection of a Potent and Highly Selective Inhibitor of TGFβ1 Activation

TGFβ1 is produced by cells as a single protein chain and is then enzymatically processed by the cells into two distinct and physically separated domains — the mature, active growth factor and the remaining portion of the original protein, referred to as the prodomain, or latency associated peptide — which remains associated with and keeps the growth factor in an inactive state. This complex is further associated with one of a number of “presenting molecules” which when secreted serve to tether the latent precursor in specific locations in the body. TGFβ1 is produced by a variety of cell types, including fibroblasts, which deposit latent TGFβ1 in connective tissue, as well as regulatory T cells and macrophages, which display latent TGFβ1 on their cell surfaces.

Table of Contents

In a seminal peer-reviewed publication in 2011, by solving a high-resolution x-ray crystal structure of the latent form of TGFβ1, our founder, Dr. Springer elucidated a new understanding of the mechanism that underlies the activation of latent precursor forms of members of the TGFβ superfamily of protein growth factors. This research explained at a molecular level why the secreted form of TGFβ1 is inactive. The prodomain, though physically separated from the mature growth factor domain, forms a “cage” around the active form of TGFβ1, blocking the ability of the growth factor to signal through its receptor. Integrin proteins are able to unlock the “cage” by binding to the prodomain of the latent TGFβ1 complex and applying force to pull the complex open, allowing the mature growth factor to be released and signal in its microenvironment. While mature TGFβ1 shares a high degree of structural similarity with its closely related family members, TGFβ2 and TGFβ3, their respective cages are structurally diverse. By taking advantage of the differences among the prodomains, together with our understanding of the activation mechanism and ability to recapitulate the activation mechanism in vitro, we were able to identify multiple highly selective inhibitors of the activation of latent TGFβ1.

By specifically targeting the TGFβ1 isoform, we believe we have the key to unlock the power of checkpoint inhibitors and meaningfully increase response rates across multiple solid tumor types. In March 2019, we selected SRK-181 as a product candidate in our TGFβ1 cancer immunotherapy program based on the strength of preclinical data and human translational insights. In vitro and in vivo studies of SRK-181 showed that it binds to latent TGFβ1 with high affinity and high selectivity, which is evidenced by minimal or no binding to latent TGFβ2 or latent TGFβ3 isoforms. Integrins, such as αVβ6 and αVβ8, can trigger the activation of TGFβ1 and TGFβ3. In addition, biochemical evidence suggests that certain proteases (e.g., Plasmin and Kallikreins) may also induce TGFβ activation. Notably, these integrins and proteases have been implicated in tumor biology in a number of human cancers. SRK-181 is capable of inhibiting both integrin-dependent- and protease-induced activation of TGFβ1.

SRK-181 selectively binds to proTGFβ1complexes with minimal or no binding to proTGFβ2 or proTGFβ3 complexes.

TGFβ1 in Cancer Therapy

We believe that specific inhibition of TGFβ1 may have a significant impact on the treatment of patients in certain oncology settings.

Immune checkpoints are cellular mechanisms that act as a brake on the immune system, and expression of these proteins in the tumor microenvironment creates an immunosuppressive environment that allows tumor cells to evade being killed by the immune system. Immune checkpoint proteins, such as PD-1/PD-L1, have therefore become key therapeutic targets in the tumor microenvironment. By inhibiting these proteins, the brakes on the immune system are released,

Table of Contents

allowing the T cells to kill the cancer cells. There are currently multiple approved checkpoint inhibitor therapies that target the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway.

A significant proportion of patients, in many cases the majority, fail to respond to these checkpoint inhibitor therapies, because they have what appears to be a pre-existing, or primary, resistance to immunotherapy. Other patients’ cancers appear to initially respond but subsequently progress. In many human cancers, TGFβ signaling is associated with lack of response to PD(L)-1 blockade, particularly in patients with tumors harboring an immune excluded phenotype (i.e., CD8+ T cells present in nearby stroma but excluded from the tumor parenchyma). Gene expression analysis of pre-treatment melanoma tumors identified multiple TGFβ-related signaling signatures associated with pre-existing or primary resistance to anti-PD-(L)1 antibody therapy. Similarly, it has also been reported that retrospective pathway analysis of tumor samples from an atezolizumab bladder cancer trial identified the TGFβ pathway as a major determinant of primary resistance to atezolizumab.

Our analysis of publicly available human tumor data has identified TGFβ1 as the predominant TGFβ isoform expressed in many solid tumors.

National Cancer Institute - Cancer Genome Atlas Program RNAseq analysis of >10,000 samples spanning 33 tumor types show high expression of the TGFβ1 isoform across many in many tumor types

Preclinical Evidence in Overcoming Resistance to Checkpoint Inhibition

Using multiple mouse models that recapitulate the immune-excluded phenotype, we have observed that co-administration of SRK-181-mIgG1, the murine version of SRK-181, with an anti-PD-1 antibody renders these tumor models sensitive to the combination treatment. These models, including the MBT-2 bladder cancer model, the Cloudman S91 melanoma model and the EMT6 breast cancer model, are poorly responsive or unresponsive to single agent treatment with either anti-PD-1 or SRK-181-mIgG1, with little or no effect on tumor growth. However, the combination of SRK-181-mIgG1 and anti-PD-1 resulted in tumor regressions. Furthermore, the combination treatment led to significant survival benefit in both models.

Table of Contents

SRK-181-mIgG1 renders the syngeneic Cloudman S91 melanoma model susceptible to anti-PD-1 CPI therapy, as measured by tumor regression and growth control, and survival benefit

This effect on tumor regression and survival benefit was also observed in the EMT6 breast cancer model, which expresses both TGFβ1 and TGFβ3, suggesting that potently inhibiting TGFβ1 alone is sufficient for enabling a synergistic anti-tumor response in conjunction with anti-PD-1 antibody treatment.

Table of Contents

SRK-181-mIgG1 renders the syngeneic EMT6 breast cancer model susceptible to anti-PD-1 CPI therapy, as measured by tumor regression and growth control, and survival benefit

Furthermore, in in vivo mechanistic studies of the same tumor models, we observed an increase in the number of effector T cells in tumors from mice treated with the SRK-181-mIgG1/anti-PD-1 combination versus control or single agent treatment, suggesting that overcoming innate CPI resistance involves enhanced presence and activity of killer T cells. CD8+ population expanded to an average of 34% of the tumor’s immune cells from a control average of 3.5%. We also observed a decrease in intratumoral immunosuppressive myeloid cells – a reduction in TAM/MDSC population to 14% of the tumor’s immune cells from a control average of 47%.

Table of Contents

Combination treatment of MBT-2 tumor bearing mice with SRK-181-mIgG1 and an anti-PD-1 antibody causes an increase in intra-tumoral effector T cells and a decrease in intratumoral immunosuppressive myeloid cells

We have demonstrated preclinically the potential of SRK-181 for reduced toxicity that has historically limited drug exposure with non-selective TGFβ inhibition. In a 28-day pilot nonclinical toxicology study in adult rats, we did not observe any drug-related toxicity up to the highest tested dose (100 mg/kg weekly) of SRK-181. In the same study, we tested non-selective TGFβ inhibitors and observed the published toxicities, including cardiac toxicity and death. We have also completed four-week GLP-toxicology studies in rats and non-human primates and no SRK-181 related adverse effects were observed up to the highest evaluated dose of 200 mg/kg per week and 300 mg/kg per week, respectively.

DRAGON Phase 1 Clinical Trial

Our DRAGON Phase 1, open-label, proof-of-concept trial is evaluating the safety, tolerability, PK/PD, and efficacy of SRK-181 administered intravenously every 3 weeks (Q3W) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors. This clinical trial will investigate if SRK-181 in combination with anti-PD-(L)1 therapy may overcome primary resistance to anti-PD-(L)1 therapy and lead to anti-tumor responses.

This two-part clinical trial consists of a dose escalation portion (Part A) for SRK-181 as both a single agent and in combination with an approved anti-PD-(L)1 antibody therapy, followed by a dose expansion portion (Part B) evaluating SRK-181 in combination with an approved anti-PD-(L)1 antibody therapy in multiple tumor-specific cohorts. Patients must have locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors that exhibit primary resistance to anti-PD-(L)1 antibody therapy. Lack of response is characterized as either stable disease or progressive disease following treatment with an approved anti-PD(L)1 therapy, either alone or in combination with other therapy. Up to 3 lines of treatment are allowed between the last dose of anti-PD-1 and this study treatment in non-small cell lung cancer, cutaneous melanoma, clear cell renal cell carcinoma, and urothelial carcinoma cohorts.

Based on the safety and pharmacokinetic data from Part A of the DRAGON Phase 1 trial, we initiated the Part B dose expansion portion of the clinical trial, which is evaluating SRK-181 dosed 1500 mg every three weeks (Q3W) in patients receiving an approved anti-PD-(L)1 therapy dosed Q3W and 1000 mg every two weeks (Q2W) in patients receiving an approved anti-PD-(L)1 therapy dosed Q2W. Part B will enroll and dose patients in multiple proof of concept cohorts conducted in parallel. Each cohort is expected to enroll up to 40 patients with various locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors who have demonstrated primary resistance to anti-PD-(L)1 therapy. Initial efficacy and safety data are anticipated in 2022.

Table of Contents

Potential Applications of SRK-181 in Additional Oncology Settings

Furthermore, in addition to cancer immunotherapy, we believe SRK-181 has the potential for use in additional oncology settings, such as in immunotherapy-naïve patients, in combination with other therapies beyond checkpoint inhibitors and in myelofibrosis.

TGFβ1 in Fibrotic Diseases

In December 2018, we entered into a three-year collaboration with Gilead to discover and develop therapeutics that target TGFβ-driven signaling, a central regulator of fibrosis. Under the collaboration, Gilead had exclusive options to license worldwide rights to antibodies from certain TGFβ programs being developed by us. We received $80.0 million in proceeds upon signing the agreement and an additional $25.0 million for a preclinical milestone achieved in December 2019 for the successful demonstration of efficacy in preclinical in vivo proof-of-concept studies. The collaboration period concluded on December 19, 2021 and on January 6, 2022, Gilead agreed that its option exercise period for all programs terminated which returned rights to us to a suite of antibodies with novel pharmacological profiles that were discovered over the course of the collaboration with Gilead.

Of particular note, we have discovered antibodies that selectively inhibit the activation of latent TGFβ1 in the context of fibrotic extracellular matrix and that avoid perturbing TGFβ1 presented by cells of immune system. Such antibodies demonstrated significant antifibrotic activity in a variety of preclinical rodent models and safety at all doses tested in a non-GLP mouse safety study.

TGFβ1 in Fibrosis

Fibrosis is a pathological feature of disease which can occur in virtually all organs, characterized by excessive accumulation of extracellular matrix in the affected tissue and accounts for substantial morbidity and mortality. The TGFβ signaling pathway as a central regulator of fibrosis has been well-established. TGFβ is upregulated in many animal models of fibrosis, and overexpression of TGFβ in vivo induces fibrotic changes. Furthermore, TGFβ inhibition in animal models has been shown to reduce fibrosis in models of hepatic, renal and cardiac fibrosis. Additionally, fresolisumab, an inhibitor of all three TGFβ isoforms, was evaluated in an open-label clinical trial involving patients with systemic sclerosis, a fibrotic connective tissue disease. Improvement in clinical skin disease as measured by the modified Rodnan skin score, a commonly used measure of skin thickness, was observed, although bleeding episodes and other safety findings similar to those associated with non-selective TGFβ inhibition were also reported in this clinical trial. These data suggest that novel approaches to targeting TGFβ signaling may have broad applicability to the treatment of fibrotic disease, where more selective approaches may offer an improved safety profile. We have identified a suite of antibodies with anti-fibrotic activity acting through novel selectivity profiles that were discovered over the course of the collaboration including those which may have therapeutic potential for the treatment of organ fibrosis by inhibiting TGFβ1 function in connective tissue while having no impact on the activation or signaling of TGFβ1 in the immune system. We plan to continue the advancement of these assets as part of our growing preclinical pipeline

Context-dependent TGFβ1 Inhibitors

As mentioned, when latent TGFβ1 is secreted from cells, it is further associated with a third protein, referred to as a presenting molecule. The presenting molecules are covalently bound to the prodomain and serve to tether the latent TGFβ1 complex in a particular microenvironment. Unlike TGFβ1, a given presenting molecule's expression pattern is restricted to particular cellular and tissue environments. For example, the presenting molecule GARP is found primarily on regulatory T cells, the presenting molecules LTBP1 and LTBP3 are localized to the connective tissue in the extracellular matrix, and the presenting molecule LRRC33 is found primarily on certain myeloid lineage cells such as macrophages.

Table of Contents

Using our proprietary platform, we are also able to identify antibodies that we believe selectively (i) inhibit the activation of latent TGFβ1 both independently—our context-independent program— and (ii) selectively in the context of specific presenting molecules—our context-dependent programs—which we refer to as context-dependent inhibition. For example, we have identified antibodies that specifically bind to and inhibit the activation of GARP-presented latent TGFβ1 on regulatory T cells with no detectable binding to latent TGFβ1 associated with other presenting molecules. These antibodies are the subject of our license agreement with Janssen.

Discovery and Preclinical Programs

Utilizing our proprietary platform, we have multiple early stage and preclinical programs directed against targets that are known to be important in serious diseases. We are discovering and generating highly selective and differentiated monoclonal antibodies against difficult targets by 1) applying our structural insights and antibody discovery expertise, 2) prioritizing human biology, and 3) embedding translational thinking early in the research and development process.

Additional therapeutic areas and targets that we could potentially apply our scientific platform and expertise include:

● Advancing active discovery programs for context-dependent inhibitors of TGFβ1.

Table of Contents

We continue to enhance our internal biologics discovery capabilities including the use of humanized transgenic rodents as well as single-domain antibody libraries. These new capabilities allow us to more efficiently discover antibodies and furthers our commitment to building a differentiated portfolio of product candidates.

License Agreements

Gilead Collaboration

On December 19, 2018 (the “Effective Date”), we entered into a three-year collaboration with Gilead to discover and develop therapeutics that target TGFβ-driven signaling, a central regulator of fibrosis (“the Collaboration Agreement”). In connection with the Collaboration Agreement, we received an upfront payment of $50 million and an equity investment of $30 million.

In December 2019, we achieved a $25 million preclinical milestone under the Gilead Collaboration Agreement for the successful demonstration of efficacy in preclinical in vivo proof-of-concept studies.

On January 6, 2022, we entered into a letter agreement with Gilead which (i) confirmed that the collaboration period under the Collaboration Agreement had expired as of December 19, 2021, and (ii) agreed the option exercise period for all programs under the Collaboration Agreement had been terminated as January 6, 2022.

License Agreement with Janssen

On December 17, 2013, we entered into an option and license agreement with Janssen (the “Janssen Agreement”). Pursuant to the Janssen Agreement, Janssen funded our drug discovery research to identify molecules with either one or two pharmacological profiles, over a two-year period beginning on December 17, 2013 (the “collaboration period”).

Janssen exercised its option under this agreement in December 2015 to exclusively license certain collaboration molecules for one pharmacological profile, the selective inhibition of TGFβ1 in the context of regulatory T cells, and our obligations under the program plan for the molecule and related pharmacological profile ceased and Janssen assumed full responsibility for further development of the molecules at its sole cost.

Janssen is obligated to pay us up to $25 million upon the achievement of specified development milestones and up to $97 million upon the achievement of specified regulatory milestones. In addition, for any licensed product, Janssen is required to pay to us up to $130 million upon the achievement of specified annual net sales thresholds. For a period commencing on the first commercial sale of a product, on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis, until the latest to occur of (i) the expiration date of the last valid claim within the licensed patent rights covering the licensed product, (ii) the tenth anniversary date of the first commercial sale of a licensed product, or (iii) the termination or expiration of regulatory exclusivity for a licensed product, such period the royalty period, Janssen is required to pay to us, single digit percentage tiered royalties based on annual net sales thresholds.

Table of Contents

The Janssen Agreement will expire on a country-by-country basis on the expiration of the last royalty period for a licensed product within such country. Janssen has the right to terminate the Janssen Agreement, in whole or in part, without cause upon 90 days written notice to us. In addition, either we, or Janssen may terminate the Janssen Agreement if the other party commits a material breach of the agreement and fails to cure such breach within 60 days (or 30 days in the case of a failure to make any payment) after written notice is provided, or, upon the other party's bankruptcy, insolvency, dissolution or winding up. Upon termination, any licensed product reverts to us and if Janssen has commenced clinical trials for such licensed product, upon commercialization of such licensed product, we will be required to pay Janssen single digit percentage tiered royalties on such licensed product based on annual net sales thresholds.

License Agreement with Children's Medical Corporation

On December 17, 2013, we entered into an exclusive license agreement (the “CMCC Agreement”) with Children's Medical Center Corporation (“CMCC”), to gain exclusive control over co-owned patent rights related to our platform technology. Under the CMCC Agreement, we received an exclusive worldwide license to CMCC's rights in certain patent rights jointly owned by us and CMCC, to develop and commercialize any product or process that but for the licenses granted to us under the CMCC Agreement would infringe such patent rights, a licensed product and licensed process, respectively, for any use. We are entitled to sublicense the rights granted to us under the CMCC Agreement. These licenses and rights are subject to certain limitations and retained rights, including retained rights to practice and use the patent rights for research, educational, clinical and charitable purposes. In addition, the CMCC Agreement obligates us to meeting certain diligence milestones, including obligations to raise funds, seek collaborations and initiate discovery efforts.

We must pay CMCC annual license maintenance fees of $10,000. We will also be responsible for up to $1.3 million of development and regulatory milestone payments through the first regulatory approval of a licensed product, tiered royalty payments of low single-digit percentages on net sales of licensed products in the event that we realize sales from products covered by the license agreement, and between 10% and 20% of non-royalty income attributable to a sublicense of the CMCC rights. Such products include products developed using our proprietary platform that are covered by a valid claim contained in any patent under the license agreement. Amounts paid to CMCC are recorded as research and development expense in the statement of operations. The royalty term will terminate on the expiration date of the last valid claim within the licensed patent rights.

CMCC may terminate the CMCC Agreement if we commit a breach of the agreement and fail to cure such breach within 60 days (or 30 days in the case of our failure to make any payment) after written notice is provided, or immediately upon our bankruptcy, insolvency, dissolution or winding up, or upon 30 days' notice if we bring patent challenges relating to any patent families licensed by us under the CMCC Agreement. In addition, we may terminate the CMCC Agreement for convenience upon three months prior written notice to CMCC. Upon expiration of the CMCC Agreement, we will have a worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, sublicensable license to the intellectual property previously covered by the CMCC Agreement.

Adimab Agreement

On March 12, 2019, we entered into an amended and restated collaboration agreement (“Adimab Agreement”) with Adimab, LLC (“Adimab”). Under the Adimab Agreement, as amended, we selected a number of biological targets against which Adimab used its proprietary platform technology to discover and/or optimize antibodies based upon mutually agreed upon research plans, and we have the ability to select a specified number of additional biological targets against which Adimab will provide additional antibody discovery and optimization services. During the research term and evaluation term for a given research program with Adimab (“Research Program”), we have a non-exclusive worldwide license under Adimab’s technology to perform certain research activities and to evaluate the program

Table of Contents

antibodies to determine whether we want to exercise our option to obtain an exclusive license to exploit such antibodies (a “Development and Commercialization Option”).

Pursuant to the Adimab Agreement, we previously paid Adimab a one-time, non-creditable, non-refundable technology access fee. We are also obligated to make certain technical milestone payments to Adimab on a Research Program-by-Research Program basis. Upon exercise of a Development and Commercialization Option, we are obligated to pay to Adimab a non-creditable, nonrefundable option exercise fee of either (i) a low seven-digit dollar amount or (ii) a mid six-digit dollar amount, based on the antibodies in the given Research Program, plus, in either case, an amount equal to any technical milestone payment which was not previously paid with respect to such Research Program and less, in either case, any option extension fees paid with respect to such Research Program. On a Product (as defined in the Adimab Agreement)-by-Product basis, we will pay Adimab upon the achievement of various clinical and regulatory milestone events with total milestone payments not to exceed mid-teen millions in the aggregate for a given Product. For any Product that is commercialized, on a country-by-country and Product-by-Product basis, we are obligated to pay to Adimab a low-to-mid single-digit percentage of annual worldwide net sales of such Product during the applicable royalty period in each country.

SRK-181 is subject to the terms of the Adimab Agreement, and in March 2019, we exercised our Development and Commercialization Option for the Research Program from which SRK-181 was generated. In January 2020 and December 2020, we exercised our Development and Commercialization Option for additional Research Programs.

Intellectual Property

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to protect intellectual property for our product candidates, including apitegromab and SRK-181, and related methods, as well as our novel approach and proprietary platform for generating monoclonal antibodies; to secure freedom-to-operate to enable commercialization of our product candidates, if approved; and to prevent others from infringing upon our patent rights. Our policy is to seek to protect our intellectual property position by filing patent applications in key jurisdictions, including the U.S., Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia, covering our proprietary technology, inventions and improvements that are important to innovate, develop, sustain and implement our business.

We file patent applications directed to compositions comprising our antibodies, classes of antibodies covering our product candidates, use of such antibodies for treating diseases, as well as related manufacturing methods. As of January 1, 2022, we have 26 pending patent families across multiple programs. Among the pending families, 16 have been nationalized, from which 15 applications have matured into U.S. issued patents, six granted in Australia, one granted in China, one granted in Colombia, one granted in Eurasia, four granted in Europe, two granted in Israel, one granted in Hong Kong, three granted in Japan, one granted in South Korea, one granted in Mexico, one granted in Malaysia, two granted in Singapore, and one granted in South Africa. Collectively, there are 203 national or direct utility applications pending or issued. In addition, there are seven patent family filings which are in the priority year. We continue to review and harvest new inventions for new patent filings.

Two granted patents, EP2981822 and EP3368069, are currently the subject of ongoing opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office (“EPO”). We have no other contested proceedings relating to any patents at this time, but we cannot provide any assurances that we will not have such proceedings at a later date.For more information regarding the risks related to our intellectual property, please see “Risk factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”

Ownership and IP Rights

Our earliest patent family, PCT/US2013/068613 (published as WO 2014/074532), is jointly owned by us and CMCC. CMCC is the assignee of the intellectual property rights transferred from two of our co-founders, Drs. Timothy A.

Table of Contents

Springer and Leonard I. Zon. The portion of rights owned by CMCC is exclusively licensed to us. We are the sole legal owner of all subsequent patent families we have to date.

As described, a portion of our TGFβ technology is out-licensed to Janssen. This is carved out as PCT/US2017/042162 (published as WO 2018/013939), which has been nationalized. The licensee takes lead in the prosecution of this patent family. The licensee also has a non-exclusive license to our platform technology to enable their development in the licensed field.

Brief descriptions of our patent families are provided below, with projected patent terms excluding any possible patent term adjustments or extensions.

Platform

Our novel approach to generating selective modulators of supracellular activation of growth factors is broadly embodied in our two earliest “platform” patent families, PCT/US2013/068613 (published as WO 2014/074532) and PCT/US2014/036933 (published as WO 2014/182676). These patent families are directed to methods for modulating the activation of the TGFβ superfamily of growth factors and methods for screening for a monoclonal antibody that specifically targets an inactive form of the growth factor, thereby preventing activation (e.g., release) of mature growth factor. The TGFβ superfamily is a group of more than 30 related growth factors/cytokines that mediate diverse biological processes and includes TGFβ1 and myostatin (also known as GDF-8). Issued U.S. patents in the platform families include: U.S. Patents Nos. 9,573,995 (issued 02/21/2017); 9,758,576 (issued 09/12/2017); 9,580,500 (issued 02/28/2017); 9,399,676 (issued 07/26/2016); 9,758,577 (issued 09/12/2017); 10,597,443 (issued 03/24/2020); and 10,981,981 (04/20/2021). There is also a granted European (“EP”) platform patent: EP2981822 (granted on 09/02/2020), which was validated in 37 states. These US and EP patents are projected to expire in 2034.

Specifically, EP2981822 has granted composition of matter claims directed to an antibody capable of binding a recombinant antigen comprising pro-TGFβ1 or a growth factor-prodomain complex which comprises the TGFβ1 LAP complex, in addition to claims directed to methods of making such antibodies. EP2981822 is currently the subject of ongoing opposition proceedings before the EPO.

U.S. Patent No. 9,573,995 has issued composition of matter claims directed to an antibody that specifically binds to GARP associated with a human TGFβ1 LAP complex.

U.S. Patent No. 9,758,576 has issued composition of matter claims directed to an isolated monoclonal antibody, or a fragment thereof, that specifically binds the prodomain of a pro/latent GDF-8/myostatin complex, thereby preventing proteolytic cleavage between residues Arg 75 and Asp 76 of GDF-8/myostatin prodomain, so as to inhibit the release of mature GDF-8/myostatin growth factor from the complex.

U.S. Patent No. 9,580,500 has issued claims directed to phage display library-based antibody production methods for identifying an antibody that binds a GARP/proTGFβ1 complex.

U.S. Patent No. 9,399,676 has issued claims directed to phage display library-based antibody production methods for identifying an antibody that binds a pro/latent GDF-8 complex that has been subjected to enzymatic cleavage. Related product-by-process claims are included in issued U.S. Patent No. 9,758,577.

U.S. Patent No. 10,597,443 has issued with claims that broadly cover manufacturing methods for a pharmaceutical composition containing an antibody that binds a large latent complex of TGFβ, thereby modulating TGFβ signaling.

In addition, U.S. Patent No. 10,981,981 has issued with claims that broadly cover manufacturing methods for a pharmaceutical composition containing an antibody that binds pro/latent GDF-8, but does not bind to mature GDF-8, and inhibits GDF-8 signaling.

Table of Contents

Myostatin Activation Inhibitors

Seven patent families have been filed to date to cover proprietary myostatin inhibitors and their use in the treatment of various muscle and metabolic diseases. Patent prosecution of these pending patent families is ongoing but relatively early.

Two families are directed to composition of matter claims that cover our proprietary antibodies. PCT/US2015/059468 (published as WO 2016/073853) broadly covers a class of monoclonal antibodies that specifically bind inactive precursors thereby preventing activation of myostatin. This patent family is projected to expire in November 2035. U.S. Patents 10,307,480 and 11,135,291 have issued in June 2019 and October 2021, respectively, with issued claims directed to Scholar Rock proprietary antibodies that specifically bine pro/latent myostatin, including 29H4, the parental clone of apitegromab, and variants, as well as methods of making antibodies with pH sensitive binding to pro/latent myostatin. A second family, PCT/US2016/052014 (published as WO 2017/049011), discloses the specific amino acid sequence of apitegromab and is projected to expire in September 2036. U.S. Patent 10,751,413 issued in August 2020, with claims directed to antibodies and pharmaceutical compositions comprising the heavy and light chain sequences of apitegromab. The European counterpart also granted as EP 3350220 B1 in May 2021. The granted claims relate to antibodies comprising the heavy and light chain variable region sequences of apitegromab, and pharmaceutical compositions of the antibodies.

The following three patent families are directed to therapeutic uses/methods:

PCT/US2017/012606 (published as WO 2017/120523) broadly covers treatment methods for a number of muscle and neuromuscular disease and disorders using an antibody that specifically blocks the activation step of myostatin. The related U.S. application issued in May 2019 as U.S. Patent 10,287,345 and is projected to expire in September 2036. The issued claims are drawn to methods for inhibiting myostatin activation using our proprietary activation inhibitors (such as apitegromab) to cause specified pharmacological effects to treat a variety of conditions including, muscle and metabolic disorders. A second U.S. application issued as U.S. Patent 10,882,904 in January 2021. The issued claims recite methods for inhibiting myostatin activation using an antibody comprising the heavy and light chain sequences of apitegromab for various indications.

PCT/US2017/037332 (published as WO 2017/218592) is directed to methods for treating neuromuscular diseases and selecting patient populations that are likely to respond to myostatin inhibition. This filing includes the treatment of SMA in patients who are on an SMN corrector therapy (e.g., SMN upregulators). This patent family is projected to expire in June 2037. The PCT application was nationalized in 11 jurisdictions, and applications in the three key jurisdictions (i.e., U.S., Europe and Japan) have granted. Specifically, the U.S. application granted in May of 2021. The granted claims are directed to add-on or combination therapy for treating spinal muscular atrophy with a myostatin inhibitor and a neuronal corrector (such as smn upregulator therapy). Similar claims have also granted in Japan (JP Patent No. 6823167). Likewise, the European counterpart granted as EP 3368069B1, and has been validated in 37 states. The granted European claims are directed to add-on therapy and combination therapy for the treatment of SMA using a myostatin-selective inhibitor, in conjunction with an SMN corrector therapy. EP 3368069B1 is currently the subject of ongoing opposition proceedings before the EPO.

PCT/US2018/012686 (published as WO 2018/129395) relates to the treatment of metabolic diseases with a myostatin activation inhibitor and is projected to expire in January 2038. The PCT was nationalized in 2019 and is in the early stages of prosecution. A US patent issued in October of 2021 as US 11,155,611, with claims directed to methods of making a pharmaceutical composition comprising a myostatin-selective inhibitor, comprising screening for an antibody that is capable of decreasing expression of pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase 4 (PDK4) and increasing expression of pyruvate dehydrogenase phosphatase 1 (PDP1).

In addition to the five pending patent families listed above, there is also a recently-filed PCT application directed to inventions deriving from the phase 2 clinical trial of apitegromab. Moreover, issued claims of U.S. Patent 9,758,576 from the platform patents discussed in detail above cover monoclonal antibodies that selectively inhibit myostatin signaling by blocking the proteolytic activation of latent myostatin. These issued composition of matter claims provide

Table of Contents

protection for our first antibody apitegromab, as well as any other monoclonal antibodies that work by this unique mechanism of action. This patent expires in May 2034, not including any potential patent term extension.

TGFβ1 Activation Inhibitors

In addition to the patent families discussed above in the “Intellectual Property-Platform” section that generically cover certain aspects of the TGFβ1 program, thirteen patent families have been filed to date, covering various specific aspects of our TGFβ1 program.

Isoform-specific inhibitors of TGFβ1 which confer improved safety profile and related methods are described in PCT/US2017/021972 (published as WO 2017/156500). This family is projected to expire in March 2037. Among TGFβ1 inhibitors, one of our context-independent antibodies is separately claimed and related preclinical data are described in PCT/US2018/012601 (published as WO 2018/129329). This patent application is projected to expire in January 2038.

In addition, high-affinity, isoform-selective TGFβ1 inhibitors are disclosed in PCT/2019/041373 (published as WO US2020/014460). Patents of this family are projected to expire in 2039. Separately, three direct national/regional applications covering related subject matter have been filed, in the U.S., Europe and Hong Kong, and are projected to expire in 2039. A US patent issued in September of 2021 as US 11,130,803, with claims which cover the SRK-181 clinical candidate and pharmaceutical compositions thereof; and a European patent issued in November of 2021 as EP3677278, with claims that cover the SRK-181 clinical candidate, pharmaceutical compositions, use for treating cancer and myelofibrosis, and methods for manufacturing. Additionally, PCT/US2021/012969 (published as WO 2021/142448) discloses data related to biomarkers for the high-affinity, isoform-selective TGFβ1 inhibitors and is projected to expire in 2041. Antibodies claimed in these patent families protect our SRK-181 clinical candidate.

Separately, other improved isoform-selective, context-independent inhibitors of TGFβ1 are disclosed in PCT/US2019/041390 (published as WO 2020/014473). This family is projected to expire in 2039. PCT/US2021/12930 (published as WO 2021/142427) is directed to optimized isoform-selective, context-independent inhibitors of TGFβ1. This family is projected to expire in 2041.

LTBP complex-specific inhibitors of TGFβ1 are described in two patent families: PCT/US2018/44216 (published as WO 2019/023661) which is expected to expire in July of 2038; and PCT/US2020/15915 (published as WO2020/160291), which is expected to expire in 2040. A US patent has been allowed in the second patent family with claims directed to antibodies and pharmaceutical compositions.

LRRC33-specific inhibitors are described in a further patent family: PCT/US2018/031759 (published as WO 2018/208888) which is expected to expire in May of 2038. A second patent family has been filed and is in the priority year, which will be converted to international patent application (PCT) in July of 2022.

PCT/US2017/042162 (published as WO 2018/013939) is a collaboration patent family exclusively licensed to Janssen. This patent family covers antibodies that specifically inhibit GARP-associated TGFβ, and is projected to expire in July 2037. Janssen takes prosecution lead in this case.

Finally, four other TGFβ patent families have been filed and are in the priority year.

RGMc-Selective Inhibitors

PCT/US2019/57687 (published as WO2020/86736) is directed to RGMc-selective inhibitors and will expire in 2039. A second family has been filed and is in the priority year, which will be converted to international patent application (PCT) in October of 2022.

Table of Contents

Intellectual Property Protection

We cannot predict whether the patent applications we pursue will issue as patents in any particular jurisdiction or whether the claims of any issued patents will provide any proprietary protection from competitors. Even if our pending patent applications are granted as issued patents, those patents, as well as any patents we license from third parties, may be challenged, circumvented or invalidated by third parties. As mentioned above, two granted patents, EP2981822 and EP3368069, are currently the subject of ongoing opposition proceedings before the EPO. While there are currently no contested proceedings or third-party claims relating to any of the other patents described above, we cannot provide any assurances that we will not have such proceedings or third-party claims at a later date.

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 file, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest date of filing a non-provisional patent application. In the U.S., the patent term of a patent that covers an FDA-approved drug or biologic may also be eligible for patent term extension, which permits patent term restoration as compensation for the patent term lost during FDA regulatory review process. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit 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 or biologic is under regulatory review. 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 or biologic may be extended. Similar provisions are available in Europe and other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug or biologic or provide an additional period of protection for the approved pharmaceutical product following expiry of the patent. In the future, if our products receive FDA approval, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on patents covering those products. We plan to seek patent term extensions to any of our issued patents in any jurisdiction where these are available, however there is no guarantee that the applicable authorities, including the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in the U.S. and the national patent offices in Europe, will agree with our assessment of whether such extensions should be granted, and if granted, the length of such extensions.

In addition to our reliance on patent protection for our inventions, product candidates and research programs, we also rely on trade secret protection for our confidential and proprietary information. For example, certain elements of our proprietary platform may be based on unpatented trade secrets that are not publicly disclosed. Although we take steps to protect our proprietary information and trade secrets, including through contractual means with our employees and consultants, third parties may independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information and techniques or otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or disclose our technology. Thus, we may not be able to meaningfully protect our trade secrets. It is our policy to require our employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers and other advisors to execute confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of employment or consulting relationships with us. These agreements provide that all confidential information concerning our business or financial affairs developed or made known to the individual or entity during the course of the party's relationship with us is to be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties except in specific circumstances. In the case of employees, the agreements provide that all inventions conceived by the individual, and which are related to our current or planned business or research and development or made during normal working hours, on our premises or using our equipment or proprietary information, are our exclusive property. In addition, we take other appropriate precautions, such as physical and technological security measures, to guard against misappropriation of our proprietary technology by third parties. We have also adopted policies and conduct training that provides guidance on our expectations, and our advice for best practices, in protecting our trade secrets.

Manufacturing

We do not own or operate facilities for clinical drug manufacturing, storage, distribution or quality testing. Currently, all of our clinical manufacturing is outsourced to third-party manufacturers. As our development programs expand and we build new process efficiencies, we expect to continually evaluate this strategy with the objective of satisfying demand for registration trials and, if approved, the manufacture, sale and distribution of commercial products.

Table of Contents

Antibody Discovery

We have built and internalized antibody display and discovery capability, however at times we may continue to rely on third parties to conduct antibody discovery and optimization based on criteria and specifications provided by us. Certain antibody discovery and optimization vendors require us to enter into a license with them for the right to use antibodies discovered by them in humans or for commercial purposes. Such license could include substantial milestone payments and royalties to the extent we choose to use an antibody discovered by such vendor. On March 12, 2019, we exercised an option to receive such a license from Adimab pursuant to our Adimab Agreement. Please see the description above in “License Agreements – Adimab Agreement” for more details on the terms of this agreement.

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapid evolution of technologies, fierce competition, and strong defense of intellectual property. While we believe that our product candidates, discovery programs, technology, knowledge, experience and scientific resources provide us with competitive advantages, we face competition from major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies and public and private research institutions, among others.

Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize could compete with currently approved therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. Key product features that would affect our ability to effectively compete with other therapeutics include the efficacy, safety and convenience of our products.

In the SMA market, there are three approved SMN-directed treatments and no approved muscle-directed treatments for SMA to date. We believe that it will take several treatment approaches to holistically treat SMA. The SMA drug development pipeline reflects that, wherein existing companies are looking to enhance their current offering or SMA portfolio, newer companies to the field, such as Scholar Rock, are researching novel approaches to target systems and processes adversely impacted by SMA to help slow the disease progression.

In October 2021, Roche announced the initiation of a Phase 2/3 clinical trial to investigate RO7204239, an anti-myostatin antibody targeting the muscles in SMA patients. This announcement follows the approval of Roche’s SMN directed treatment. We may face direct competition from products within the muscle-directed therapy category in the future as the SMA market evolves to these new treatment approaches.

In terms of indirect competition, existing companies like Novartis continue plans to study an alternate formulation of their existing gene therapy (OAV101) after a partial clinical trial hold last year. Biogen continues expanding their SMA pipeline with the recent licensing of another antisense oligonucleotide (BIIB115) that may have the potential for extending dosing intervals, in addition to their Phase 1 investigational agent (BIIB110) that is intended to work in part through inhibition of the myostatin signaling pathway. In addition, Cytokinetics, Inc. has completed a Phase 2 clinical trial with reldesemtiv, a fast-skeletal muscle troponin activator (“FSTA”) in SMA.

Our competitors for SRK-181 may include other companies developing cancer immunotherapies to be used in combination with CPI therapy. Novartis’s NIS793, an anti-TGF-β IgG2 monoclonal antibody licensed from Xoma, is currently in a Phase 3 clinical trial for the treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal carcinoma (mPDAC) in combination with chemotherapy as well as multiple early-stage clinical studies in a variety of solid tumor types and myelofibrosis.

Other companies, including Merck KGaA, Merck (acquired Tilos Therapeutics), Roche, Sanofi S.A., Bristol Meyers Squibb (acquired Forbius), Gilead and AbbVie Inc. are developing therapies for cancer immunotherapy in combination with CPI therapy, that are intended to work, at least in part, through inhibition of the TGFβ signaling pathway.

Our competitors may also include companies that are or will be developing therapies for the same therapeutic areas that we are targeting within our early pipeline, including other neuromuscular disorders, cancer and fibrosis.

Many of the companies against which we may compete have significantly greater financial resources and expertise than we do in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining

Table of Contents

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.

The availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors will also significantly affect the pricing and competitiveness of our products. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market.

Government Regulation

Government authorities in the U.S. at the federal, state and local level and in other countries regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of drug and biological products, such as apitegromab, SRK-181 and any future product candidates. Generally, before a new drug or biologic can be marketed, considerable data demonstrating its quality, safety and efficacy must be obtained, organized into a format specific for each regulatory authority, submitted for review and approved by the regulatory authority.

U.S. Biological Product Development

In the U.S., the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), and its implementing regulations and biologics under the FDCA, the Public Health Service Act (“PHSA”), and their implementing regulations. Both drugs and biologics also are subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state and local statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or post-market may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include, among other actions, the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, untitled or warning letters, product recalls or market withdrawals, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement and civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.

Apitegromab, SRK-181, and any future product candidates regulated as biologics must be approved by the FDA through a Biologics License Application (“BLA”), process before they may be legally marketed in the U.S. The process generally involves the following:

● Submission of a BLA to the FDA;

Table of Contents

The preclinical and clinical testing and approval process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and we cannot be certain that any approvals for apitegromab, SRK-181 and any future product candidates will be granted on a timely basis, or at all.

Preclinical Studies and IND

Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry and formulation, as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess the potential for adverse events and in some cases to establish a rationale for therapeutic use. The conduct of preclinical studies is subject to federal regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations for safety/toxicology studies.

An IND sponsor must submit 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, to the FDA as part of an IND. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational product to humans, and must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. Some long-term preclinical testing may continue after the IND is submitted. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time, the FDA raises concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places the trial on clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. As a result, submission of an IND may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence.

Clinical Trials

The clinical stage of development involves the administration of the investigational product to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control, in accordance with GCP requirements, which include the requirement that all patients provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety and assess efficacy. Each protocol, and any subsequent amendments to the protocol, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Furthermore, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB for each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted to ensure that the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative, and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. There also are requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trial results to public registries.

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

Table of Contents

Clinical trials generally are conducted in three sequential phases, known as Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3, and may be combined or overlap.

Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of approval of a BLA.

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials, among other information, must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators for serious and unexpected suspected adverse events, findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human subjects and any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure.

Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug or biologic has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. Additionally, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. This group provides authorization for whether a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the trial. Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and also must develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug or biologic as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product and, among other things, companies must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidates do not undergo unacceptable deterioration over their shelf life.

FDA Review Process

Following completion of the clinical trials, data are analyzed to assess whether the investigational product is safe and effective for the proposed indicated use or uses. The results of preclinical studies and clinical trials are then submitted to the FDA as part of a BLA, along with proposed labeling, chemistry and manufacturing information to ensure product quality and other relevant data. The BLA is a request for approval to market the biologic for one or more specified indications and must contain proof of safety and efficacy for a drug or safety, purity and potency for a biologic. The application may include both negative and ambiguous results of preclinical studies and clinical trials, as well as positive findings. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and efficacy of a product’s use or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and efficacy of the investigational

Table of Contents

product to the satisfaction of the FDA. FDA approval of a BLA must be obtained before a biologic may be marketed in the U.S.

Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (“PDUFA”) as amended, each BLA must be accompanied by a user fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on BLAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication.

The FDA reviews all submitted BLAs before it accepts them for filing, and may request additional information rather than accepting the BLA for filing. The FDA must make a decision on accepting a BLA for filing within 60 days of receipt, and such decision could include a refusal to file (“RTF”) by the FDA. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review of the BLA. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under PDUFA, the FDA has 10 months, from the filing date, in which to complete its initial review of an original BLA and respond to the applicant, and six months from the filing date of an original BLA designated for priority review. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority BLAs, and the review process is often extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA will conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facilities for the new product to determine whether they comply with cGMP requirements. 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. The FDA also may audit data from clinical trials to ensure compliance with GCP requirements. Additionally, the FDA may refer applications for novel products or products which 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 under what conditions, if any. The FDA is not bound by recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations when making decisions on approval. The FDA likely will reanalyze the clinical trial data, which could result in extensive discussions between the FDA and the applicant during the review process. After the FDA evaluates a BLA, it will issue an Approval Letter or a Complete Response Letter. An Approval Letter authorizes commercial marketing of the biologic with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application will not be approved in its present form. A Complete Response Letter usually describes all of the specific deficiencies in the BLA identified by the FDA. The Complete Response Letter may require additional clinical data, additional pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial(s) and/or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, preclinical studies or manufacturing. If a Complete Response Letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may decide that the BLA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. Data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than we interpret the same data.

Orphan Drug Designation

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biological product intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the U.S., or more than 200,000 individuals in the U.S. and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making the product available in the U.S. for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product.

After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.

If a product that has orphan designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug for the same indication for seven years from the date of such approval, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan

Table of Contents

exclusivity by means of greater effectiveness, greater safety or providing a major contribution to patient care or in instances of drug supply issues. Competitors, however, may receive approval of either a different product for the same indication or the same product for a different indication but that could be used off-label in the orphan indication. Orphan drug exclusivity also could block the approval of one of our products for seven years if a competitor obtains approval before we do for the same product, as defined by the FDA, for the same indication we are seeking approval, or if our product is determined to be contained within the scope of the competitor’s product for the same indication or disease. If one of our products designated as an orphan drug receives marketing approval for an indication broader than that which is designated, it may not be entitled to orphan drug exclusivity. Orphan drug status in the European Union (“EU”) has similar, but not identical, requirements and benefits.

Rare Pediatric Disease Designation

The FDA grants Rare Pediatric Disease designation for serious and life-threatening diseases that primarily affect children ages 18 years or younger and fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States. Eligibility for a priority review voucher may be issued upon approval of a biologics license application (“BLA”) or New Drug Application for therapies developed to treat such rare pediatric diseases. Priority review vouchers may be redeemed to obtain priority review for any subsequent marketing application or be sold or transferred.

Expedited Development and Review Programs

The FDA has a Fast Track program that is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new drugs and biologics that meet certain criteria. Specifically, new drugs and biologics are eligible for Fast Track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and preclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Fast Track designation applies to both the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor can request the FDA to designate the product for Fast Track status any time before receiving BLA approval, but ideally no later than the pre-BLA meeting. Any product submitted to the 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 priority review and accelerated approval. Any product is eligible for priority review if it treats a serious or life-threatening condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety and effectiveness compared to available therapies. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new drug or biologic designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review.

A product may also be eligible for accelerated approval, if it treats a serious or life-threatening condition and generally provides a meaningful advantage over available therapies. In addition, it must demonstrate an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality (“IMM”), that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on IMM or other clinical benefit. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug or biologic receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical trials. In addition, for products being considered for accelerated approval, the FDA currently requires, unless otherwise informed by the agency, that all advertising and promotional materials intended for dissemination or publication within 120 days of marketing approval be submitted to the agency for review during the pre-approval review period. If the FDA concludes that a drug or biologic shown to be effective can be safely used only if distribution or use is restricted, it will require such post-marketing restrictions, as it deems necessary to assure safe use of the product. If the FDA determines that the conditions of approval are not being met, the FDA can withdraw its accelerated approval for such drug or biologic.

Additionally, a drug or biologic may be eligible for designation as a breakthrough therapy if the product is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over currently approved therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints. The benefits of breakthrough therapy designation include the same benefits as Fast Track designation, plus intensive guidance from the FDA to ensure an efficient drug development program.

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

Table of Contents

Pediatric Information

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act (“PREA”), as amended, a BLA or supplement to a BLA must contain data to assess the safety and efficacy of the drug for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of pediatric data or full or partial waivers. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to any biological product for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted. A sponsor who is planning to submit a marketing application for a drug that includes a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan (“PSP”) within 60 days of an end-of-Phase 2 meeting or, if there is no such meeting, as early as practicable before the initiation of the Phase 3 or Phase 2/3 study. The initial PSP must include an outline of the pediatric study or studies that the sponsor plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, age groups, relevant endpoints and statistical approach, or a justification for not including such detailed information, and any request for a deferral of pediatric assessments or a full or partial waiver of the requirement to provide data from pediatric studies along with supporting information. The FDA and the sponsor must reach an agreement on the PSP. A sponsor can submit amendments to an agreed-upon initial PSP at any time if changes to the pediatric plan need to be considered based on data collected from preclinical studies, early phase clinical trials and/or other clinical development programs.

Post-marketing Requirements

Following approval of a new product, the manufacturer and the approved product are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, monitoring and record-keeping activities, reporting of adverse experiences, complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include restrictions on promoting products for unapproved uses or patient populations (known as “off-label use”) and limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities. Although physicians may prescribe legally available products for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such uses. Prescription drug and biologic promotional materials must be submitted to the FDA in conjunction with their first use. Further, if there are any modifications to the drug or biologic, including changes in indications, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new BLA or BLA supplement, which may require the development of additional data or preclinical studies and clinical trials.

The FDA may also place other conditions on approvals including the requirement for a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”) to assure the safe use of the product. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the BLA must submit a proposed REMS. The FDA will not approve the BLA without an approved REMS, if required. A REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription or dispensing of products. Newly discovered or developed safety or effectiveness data may require changes to a drug’s approved labeling, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications, and also may require the implementation of other risk management measures, including a REMS or the conduct of post-marketing studies to assess a newly discovered safety issue. Product approvals may be withdrawn for non-compliance with regulatory standards or if problems occur following initial marketing.

FDA regulations require that products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with cGMP regulations. These manufacturers must comply with cGMP regulations that require, among other things, quality control and quality assurance, the maintenance of records and documentation and the obligation to investigate and correct any deviations from cGMP. Manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs or biologics 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 requirements and other laws, as well as applicable tracking and tracing requirements. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. The discovery of violative conditions, including failure to conform to cGMP regulations, could result in enforcement actions, and the discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer or holder of an approved BLA, including recall.

Table of Contents

Other Regulatory Matters

Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities following product approval are also subject to regulation by numerous regulatory authorities in the U.S. in addition to the FDA, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”), other divisions of the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), the Department of Justice, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and state and local governments.

Other Healthcare Laws

Healthcare providers, physicians, and third-party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any products for which we obtain marketing approval. Our future arrangements with third-party payors, healthcare providers and physicians may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute any drugs for which we obtain marketing approval. In particular, the research of our product candidates, as well as the promotion, sales and marketing of healthcare items and services, as well as certain business arrangements in the healthcare industry, are subject to extensive laws designed to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, structuring and commission(s), certain customer incentive programs and other business arrangements generally. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of patient recruitment for clinical trials. In the U.S., these laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, false claims, physician transparency, and patient data privacy and security laws and regulations, including but not limited to those described below.

Table of Contents

The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulations. Federal and state enforcement bodies have recently increased their scrutiny of interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry. It is

Table of Contents

possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other related governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, individual imprisonment, disgorgement, exclusion of drugs from participation in state and federal healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, reputational harm, additional oversight and reporting obligations if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar settlement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to similar actions, penalties and sanctions. Ensuring business arrangements comply with applicable healthcare laws, as well as responding to possible investigations by government authorities, can be time and resource consuming and can divert a company’s attention from the business.

Current and Future Healthcare Reform Legislation

In the U.S. and foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. We expect that current laws, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we, or any collaborators, may receive for any approved products.

In the U.S., for example, in March 2010, the ACA was enacted. The ACA, among other things:

Table of Contents

Some of the provisions of the ACA have been subject to judicial challenges as well as efforts to repeal, replace or otherwise modify them or to alter their interpretation or implementation. For example:

Table of Contents

Additionally, there has been increasing legislative, regulatory, and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs.

Although a number of these and other proposed measures may require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, and the Biden administration may reverse or otherwise change these measures, both the Biden administration and Congress have indicated that they will continue to seek new legislative measures to control drug costs.

In addition, there have been changes related to Medicare Part B reimbursement for drugs purchased under the 340B drug pricing program. In 2018, CMS implemented a reduction in reimbursement for Medicare Part B drugs obtained under the 340B program from Average Sales Price (ASP) +6% to ASP -22.5%. This reduction has been challenged in federal court, and in July 2021 the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case. CMS has indicated that it will continue to evaluate Medicare Part B reimbursement for 340B-purchased drugs.

Individual states in the United States have also increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including by imposing price or patient assistance constraints, restrictions on certain product access, marketing cost disclosure and other transparency measures, and, in some cases, measures designed to encourage importation of pharmaceutical products from other countries and bulk purchasing. Legally mandated price controls on payment amounts by third-party payors or other restrictions could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will

Table of Contents

be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. This could reduce the ultimate demand for our drugs or put pressure on our drug pricing, which could negatively affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Packaging and Distribution in the U.S.

If our products are made available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule of the General Services Administration, additional laws and requirements apply. Products must meet applicable child resistant packaging requirements under the U.S. Poison Prevention Packaging Act. Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities also are 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 failure to comply with any of these laws or regulatory requirements subjects firms to possible legal or regulatory action. Depending on the circumstances, failure to meet applicable regulatory requirements can result in criminal prosecution, fines or other penalties, injunctions, exclusion from federal healthcare programs, requests for recall, seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, denial or withdrawal of product approvals, or refusal to allow a firm to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts. Any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. Prohibitions or restrictions on sales or withdrawal of future products marketed by us could materially affect our business in an adverse way.

Changes in regulations, statutes or the interpretation of existing regulations 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.

Other U.S. Environmental, Health and Safety Laws and Regulations

We may be subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. From time to time and in the future, our operations may involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials, and may also produce hazardous waste products. Even if we contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and waste products, we cannot completely eliminate the risk of contamination or injury resulting from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from the use or disposal of our hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties for failure to comply with such laws and regulations.

We maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees, but this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. However, we do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us.

In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. Current or future environmental laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts. In addition, failure to comply with these laws and regulations may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

U.S. Patent Term Restoration and Marketing Exclusivity

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA approval of apitegromab, SRK-181 and any future product candidates, some of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the Hatch Waxman Amendments. The Hatch

Table of Contents

Waxman Amendments permit restoration of the patent term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and FDA regulatory review process. Patent term restoration, however, cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. The patent term restoration period is generally one half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of a BLA plus the time between the submission date of a BLA and the approval of that application, except that the review period is reduced by any time during which the applicant failed to exercise due diligence. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug is eligible for the extension and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. The U.S. PTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. In the future, we may apply for restoration of patent term for our currently owned or licensed patents to add patent life beyond its current expiration date, depending on the expected length of the clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant BLA.

An abbreviated approval pathway for biological products shown to be biosimilar to, or interchangeable with, an FDA licensed reference biological product was created by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCI Act”). This amendment to the PHSA, in part, attempts to minimize duplicative testing. Biosimilarity, which requires that the biological product be highly similar to the reference product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components and that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the 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 biological product be biosimilar to the reference product and that the product can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient and, for products administered multiple times to an individual, that the product and the reference product may be alternated or switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biological product without such alternation or switch.

A reference biological product is granted 12 years of data exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the product, and the FDA will not accept an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until four years after the date of first licensure of the reference product. “First licensure” typically means the initial date the particular product at issue was licensed in the U.S. 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.

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of regulatory market exclusivity in the U.S. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing regulatory exclusivity periods. This six-month exclusivity may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric trial in accordance with an FDA issued “Written Request” for such a trial.

European Union Drug Development

In the EU, our future products also may be subject to extensive regulatory requirements. As in the U.S., medicinal products can be marketed only if a marketing authorization from the competent regulatory agencies has been obtained.

Similar to the U.S., the various phases of preclinical and clinical research in the EU are subject to significant regulatory controls.

In April 2014, the EU adopted the Clinical Trials Regulation EU No 536/2014, which replaced the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC on January 31, 2022. The main characteristics of the new Clinical Trials Regulation include: a streamlined application procedure via a single-entry point through the Clinical Trials Information System, or CTIS; a single set of documents to be prepared and submitted for the application as well as simplified reporting procedures for clinical trial sponsors; and a harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials, which is divided in two parts (Part I contains scientific and medicinal product documentation and Part II contains the national and patient-level documentation). Part I is assessed by a coordinated review by the competent authorities of all EU Member States in which an application for authorization of a clinical trial has been submitted (Member States concerned) of a draft report prepared by a Reference Member State. Part II is assessed separately by each Member State concerned. Strict deadlines have been established for the assessment of clinical trial applications. The role of the relevant ethics committees in the assessment procedure will continue to be governed by the national law of the concerned EU Member State. However,

Table of Contents

overall related timelines will be defined by the Clinical Trials Regulation. The Clinical Trial Regulation will have a transition period of three years from the date it became effective.

In the EU the Pediatric Committee (“PDCO”) of the EMA must approve the pediatric investigation plan (“PIP”) prior to filing a Marketing Authorization Application (“MAA”), unless the EMA has granted (1) a product-specific waiver, (2) a class waiver or (3) a deferral for one or more of the measures included in the PIP. The PIP outlines the pharmaceutical company’s strategy for investigation of the new medicinal product in the pediatric population. Before an MAA can be filed, or an existing marketing authorization can be amended, the EMA determines that companies actually comply with the agreed studies and measures listed in each relevant PIP. If an applicant obtains a marketing authorization in all EU Member States, or a marketing authorization granted in the centralized procedure by the EC, and the study results for the pediatric population are included in the product information, even when negative, the medicine is then eligible for an additional six-month period of qualifying patent protection through extension of the term of any supplementary protection certificate (“SPC”), provided an application for such extension is made at the same time as filing the SPC application for the product, or at any point up to 2 years before the SPC expires. In the case of orphan medicinal products, a two-year extension of the orphan market exclusivity may be available. This pediatric reward is subject to specific conditions and is not automatically available when data in compliance with the PIP are developed and submitted.

European Union Expedited Review and Development

PRIME, or PRIority MEdicine, is a scheme provided by the EMA to enhance support for the development of medicines that target an unmet medical need and provides accelerated assessment of products representing substantial innovation where the MAA will be made through the centralized procedure. To qualify for PRIME, product candidates require early clinical evidence that the therapy has the potential to offer a major therapeutic advantage over existing treatments or benefits patients without treatment options. Products from small-and medium-sized enterprises (“SMEs”) may qualify for earlier entry into the PRIME scheme than larger companies. Among the benefits of PRIME are the appointment of a rapporteur to provide continuous support and help build knowledge ahead of an MAA, early dialogue and scientific advice at key development milestones, and the potential to qualify products for accelerated review earlier in the application process. The receipt of PRIME designation does not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process. Where, during the course of development, a product no longer meets the eligibility criteria, support under the PRIME scheme may be withdrawn.

European Union Drug Marketing

Much like the Anti-Kickback Statute prohibition in the U.S., the provision of benefits or advantages to physicians to induce or encourage the prescription, recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order or use of medicinal products is also prohibited in the EU. The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians is typically governed by the national anti-bribery laws of European Union Member States, such as the UK Bribery Act 2010. Infringement of these laws could result in substantial fines and imprisonment.

Payments made to physicians in certain EU Member States must be publicly disclosed. Moreover, agreements with physicians often must be the subject of prior notification and approval by the physician’s employer, his or her competent professional organization and/or the regulatory authorities of the individual EU Member States. These requirements are provided in the national laws, industry codes or professional codes of conduct, applicable in the EU Member States. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment.

European Union Drug Review and Approval

In the EU, medicinal products can only be commercialized after obtaining a Marketing Authorization (“MA”). There are two types of MAs.

Centralized MAs, which are issued by the EC through the centralized procedure, based on the opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (“CHMP”) of the EMA, are valid throughout the EU, and in the additional Member States (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) of the EEA. The centralized procedure is mandatory for certain

Table of Contents

SRRK US Equity

SRRK · 10-K · period ended 2021-12-31

Item 1. Business

SRRK US Equity☆

SRRK · 10-K · period ended 2021-12-31

Item 1. Business

SRRK US Equity