10-K

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021

Commission File Number 001-39485

TANGO THERAPEUTICS, INC.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its Charter)

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (857) 320-4900

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

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

Common stock, par value $0.001 per share TNGX Nasdaq Global Market

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

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

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 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, 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 business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant, based on the closing price of the shares of common stock on The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC on June 30, 2021, was approximately $189.8 million.

As of March 21, 2022, the registrant had 87,707,499 shares of common stock, $0.001 par value per share, outstanding.

Table of Contents

Page

PART I

Item 1. Business 6

Item 1A. Risk Factors 41

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments 88

Item 2. Properties 88

Item 3. Legal Proceedings 88

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures 88

PART II

Item 6. [Reserved] 89

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk 102

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data 102

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures 102

Item 9B. Other Information 103

Item 9C. Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections 103

PART III

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance 104

Item 11. Executive Compensation 110

Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services 126

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules 128

Summary of Material Risks Associated with Our Business

Our business is subject to numerous material and other risks that you should be aware of before making an investment decision. These risks are described more fully in Item 1A of this Annual Report on Form 10-K entitled “Risk Factors.” These risks include, among others, the following:

Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains express or implied forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Words such as "anticipates," "continue," "could," "may," "forecasts," "expects," "intends," "plans," "potentially," "believes," "seeks," "estimates," "predict," "target," and variations of such words and similar expressions are intended to identify such forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to certain risks, uncertainties, and assumptions that are difficult to predict; therefore, actual results may differ materially from those expressed or forecasted in any such statements. Such forward-looking statements are based on current expectations, estimates and projections about our industry and business, management's beliefs, and certain assumptions made by our management, and may include, but are not limited to, statements regarding:

• our ability to commercialize our products, if approved;

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

• the rate and degree of market acceptance of our product candidates;

• regulatory developments in the United States and foreign countries;

• the success of competing therapies that are or may become available;

• our ability to attract and retain key scientific or management personnel;

• the impact of laws and regulations;

• developments relating to our competitors and its industry;

The forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are based on current expectations and beliefs concerning future developments and their potential effects on us. There can be no assurance that future developments affecting us will be those that we have anticipated. These forward-looking statements involve a number of risks, uncertainties (some of which are beyond our control) or other assumptions that may cause actual results or performance to be materially different from those expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, those factors described under the heading “Risk Factors” in Item 1A of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or should any of our assumptions prove incorrect, actual results may vary in material respects from those projected in these forward-looking statements. Some of these risks and uncertainties may in the future be amplified by the COVID-19 outbreak and there may be additional risks that we consider immaterial or which are unknown. It is not possible to predict or identify all such risks. We do not undertake any obligation

to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as may be required under applicable securities laws.

Corporate Information

We were formerly known as BCTG Acquisition Corp. (“BCTG”) and were incorporated in Delaware May 2020 as a special purpose acquisition company, formed for the purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization or other similar business. On August 10, 2021, we consummated the merger pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of April 13, 2021, by and among BCTG, BCTG Merger Sub Inc. and Tango Therapeutics Sub, Inc. Upon the consummation of the merger, we changed our name to “Tango Therapeutics, Inc.”

Our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, including exhibits, proxy and information statements and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a), 14, and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, are available through the “Investors” portion of our website free of charge as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). We also make available, free of charge on our website, the reports filed with the SEC by our executive officers, directors and 10% stockholders pursuant to Section 16 under the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after copies of those filings are provided to us by those persons.Accordingly, investors should monitor such portions of the company’s website, in addition to following the company’s press releases, SEC filings and public conference calls and webcasts. Information on our website is not to be deemed to be incorporated by reference in, and is not part of, this Annual Report on Form 10-K or any of our other securities filings, unless specifically incorporated herein by reference, and should not be relied upon in making a decision as to whether or not to purchase our common stock. Our filings with the SEC may be accessed through the SEC’s Interactive Data Electronic Applications system at http://www.sec.gov. All statements made in any of our securities filings, including all forward-looking statements or information, are made as of the date of the document in which the statement is included, and we do not assume or undertake any obligation to update any of those statements or documents unless we are required to do so by law.

Further, the company intends to use its website http://www.tangotx.com as a means of disclosing material non-public information and for complying with its disclosure obligations under the SEC Regulation FD. The information contained on, or that may be accessed through, the website is not part of, and is not incorporated into, this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Our principal executive office is located at 100 Binney Street, Suite 700, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

PART I

Item 1. Business.

Overview

We are a precision oncology company leveraging our state-of-the-art target discovery platform to identify novel targets and develop new drugs directed at tumor suppressor gene loss in defined patient populations with high unmet medical need. Tumor suppressor gene loss remains a largely untouched target space specifically because these genetic events cannot be directly targeted. Empowered by recent advances in CRISPR technology, we are now able to employ a unique functional genomics approach and apply the principles of synthetic lethality to target the loss of specific tumor suppressor genes at scale. We believe this will result in establishing a sustainable pipeline optimized to deliver meaningfully clinical benefit to patients. Our novel small molecules are designed to be selectively active in cancer cells with specific tumor suppressor gene loss, killing those cancer cells while being relatively inert in normal cells. We also are extending this target space beyond the classic, cell-autonomous effects of tumor suppressor gene loss to include the discovery of novel targets that reverse the effects of tumor suppressor gene loss that prevent the immune system from recognizing and killing cancer cells (immune evasion). We believe this approach will provide the ability to deliver the deep, sustained target inhibition necessary for prolonged tumor regression and meaningful clinical benefit as a result of the unique ability of synthetic lethal targeting to spare normal cells. We believe our approach also opens possibilities of histology-agnostic treatments for patients harboring specific genome alternations, regardless of cancer type, in cases where a specific tumor suppressor gene loss is common to more than one subgroup of cancers.

Our first product candidate, TNG908, is a synthetic lethal, small molecule inhibitor of protein arginine methyltransferase 5, or PRMT5, designed to work selectively in cancer cells with a methylthioadenosine phosphorylase, or MTAP, deletion. MTAP-deletion occurs in approximately 10% to 15% of all human tumors, including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), mesothelioma, pancreatic cancer, cholangiocarcinoma and glioblastoma (GBM). In our preclinical studies, TNG908 has demonstrated 15-fold greater potency in MTAP-deleted cancer cells versus normal cells and robust anti-tumor effects in vitro and in vivo. In the first quarter of 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cleared the Investigational New Drug (IND) application for the Phase 1/2 clinical trial and granted Fast Track designation to TNG908. We plan to initiate a Phase 1/2 clinical trial in the second quarter of 2022. We expect to have preliminary safety and efficacy data in the first half of 2023. Additionally, recent preclinical studies show that TNG908 crosses the blood-brain barrier in non-human primates therefore we plan to evaluate TNG908 in primary central nervous system cancers with MTAP deletion such as GBM as well as MTAP-deleted central nervous system (CNS) metastases.

As part of our target discovery immune evasion platform, we are developing Target 3, an undisclosed synthetic lethaltarget, that reverses the immune evasion effects of serine-threonine kinase 11 (STK11) loss-of-function mutations. STK11 loss-of-function mutations are present in approximately 15% of NSCLC, 15% of cervical cancers, 10% carcinoma of unknown primary, 5% of breast cancers and 3% of pancreatic cancers. Using an in vivo CRISPR-based context discovery screen, we identified STK11 as a tumor suppressor gene responsible for mediating immune evasion, manifest as resistance to checkpoint inhibitor therapy, when deleted and subsequently identified a drug target (Target 3) that reverses this effect when inhibited in preclinical studies. In a syngeneic tumor-bearing mice model, where STK11 mutations drive resistance to immune checkpoint blockade, Target 3 inhibition, in combination with an anti-PD1 antibody, resulted in near or complete tumor regressions in eight out of eight treated mice and the induction of immune memory against re-implantation of tumors. We expect to advance a development candidate in the second quarter of 2022 and file an IND in 2023. We expect the clinical development plan for this inhibitor in STK11-mutant cancers to be among the first to combine the power of genetically-based patient selection and checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

We are developing a small-molecule, allosteric inhibitor of ubiquitin-specific protease 1 (USP1). USP1 is a synthetic lethal target that we discovered using a CRISPR-based target discovery screen for BRCA1-mutant breast cancer. Advanced lead compounds that inhibit this target have strong in vitro and in vivo single agent activity in BRCA1-mutant breast cancer. Our lead molecules also have strong activity in BRCA2-mutant patient derived xenografts, including both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutant models that are intrinsically resistant to PARP inhibition. Our preclinical data further demonstrate that USP1 inhibition is synergistic with PARP inhibition in multiple PARP inhibitor sensitive and resistant cancer cell lines and xenograft models. We believe that these data provides the basis for the future clinical trials of a USP1 inhibitor both as a single agent and in combination with PARP inhibitors. Further, we have demonstrated in vitro activity of our lead molecules in a panel on BRCA WT lung cancer cell lines and in vivo activity in a lung cancer cell line xenograft, and are evaluating potential patient selection biomarkers for this indication. BRCA1 or BRCA 2 mutations are present in approximately 15% of

ovarian cancers, 10% of breast cancers, 10% of prostate cancers, 5% of endometrial cancers and 5% of pancreatic cancers. We anticipate advancing a development candidate in the second half of 2022 and filing an IND for this program in 2023.

In October 2018, we entered into a collaboration agreement with Gilead Sciences Inc., or Gilead, and this collaboration was expanded in August 2020, or the Gilead Agreement. Our immune evasion platform is the foundation for our collaboration with Gilead. Under the Gilead Agreement, we and Gilead collaborate to identify and develop novel immune evasion targets by leveraging our proprietary functional genomics-based discovery platform. To date, Gilead has licensed two of our programs and has research-extended two programs. Our collaboration with Gilead excludes our lead program, TNG908, our undisclosed target (Target 3) in STK11-mutant cancers, USP1 as well as a growing pipeline of novel targets identified in our non-immune based target discovery screens. We retain the right to identify and validate targets outside the scope of our collaboration with Gilead, which includes all cell autonomous targets except those discovered in immune evasion contexts, and to develop and commercialize products directed to such targets on our own or in collaboration with third parties. See “— Collaboration and License Agreements — Collaboration and License Agreement with Gilead Sciences” for additional information.

Our Pipeline

We are leveraging the power and productivity of our discovery engine to discover and validate multiple novel targets each year. Our growing pipeline consists of discovery programs for multiple cancer types with limited treatment options. Our pipeline is summarized in the table below:

Our Strategy

We are pioneering novel approaches to the discovery and development of innovative precision oncology therapies. We leverage the following core strategic components, enabling bold thinking in pursuit of transformative therapies for patients with cancer:

•

Advance TNG908, our PRMT5 inhibitor that is synthetic lethal with MTAP deletion, into the clinic in multiple indications with high unmet need

•

Bring one of the first immunotherapy program within genetically-defined patients into the clinic in STK11-mutant cancers with a Target 3 inhibitor

•

Advance our USP1 inhibitor program into clinical development in multiple BRCA1/2-mutant cancers

•

Discover and drug the next generation of synthetic lethal precision oncology targets to continue to grow our pipeline

•

Opportunistically evaluate and maximize the value of our strategic collaboration to bring more medicines to patients, accelerate development timelines and explore combination therapy approaches for our product candidates

BACKGROUND

Unmet need of cancers caused by tumor suppressor gene loss

Many genetic drivers of cancer have been well-characterized but have not been directly targeted due to their molecular structure (undruggable oncogenes) or functional loss (tumor suppressor genes). Tumor suppressor gene loss represents a significant portion of the many genetic alterations that drive the formation of cancers but it remains a largely untouched target space. Targeting tumor suppressor gene loss directly is not possible because they are deleted or inactivated, and the immune evasion effects of tumor suppressor gene loss has only recently been described. We are using the concept of synthetic lethality to address the unmet medical need of these large groups of patients characterized by tumor suppressor gene loss and activation of immune evasion genes.

Synthetic Lethality to address tumor suppressor gene loss

Synthetic lethal therapies for cancer refers to pairs of genes where one is inactivated by a genetic alteration and the other is inhibited pharmacologically. While genetic alterations give rise to the development of cancer, they also create a unique vulnerability that can be exploited therapeutically. Biologically, such vulnerability can be the inability of cancer cells to respond to a specific signal, such as DNA damage or cell cycle arrest, or the inability to remodel chromatin or to maintain cellular homeostasis. The unique advantage of a synthetic lethal approach to cancer therapy is that normal cells are not vulnerable to the synthetic lethal drug target and are largely unaffected at drug doses where the mutant cancer cells are selectively killed, noted in Figure 2 below. The recent success of PARP inhibitors in BRCA-mutant breast, ovarian and prostate cancers is the first clinical example of using synthetic lethality to target tumor suppressor gene loss.

Figure 2. In cancer cells, when a tumor suppressor gene is lost, it creates a genetic vulnerability that allows an inhibitor to target a synthetic lethal partner gene causing cell death. This selective killing only occurs in cancer cells with tumor suppressor loss, therefore largely sparing the normal cells. Therefore, these synthetic lethality targets inherently can offer a wide therapeutic index.

Moreover, we plan to use the tumor suppressor gene loss as a patient selection marker for clinical trial enrollment to ensure we are enrolling the patients most likely to benefit from each new drug candidate. We believe this approach should enable efficient clinical development and increase the probability of success with maximum clinical benefit for the patient.

We believe our expertise, capabilities, and experience differentiate us from others and will enable the rapid development of impactful new cancer treatments by:

•

Defining upfront the genetic background of the cancer type and patient subgroups with specific tumor suppressor gene loss;

•

Identifying synthetic lethal targets that are selectively active in specific genetic contexts by using cell line and animal models that reflect the patient genomics in our CRISPR-based target discovery platform;

•

Discovering and optimizing molecules with superior biological and innovative chemical properties; and

•

Selecting patients for clinical trials using the cancer genetic context employed during target discovery as patient selection biomarkers to maximize enrollment of the patients most likely to respond.

Our Immune Evasion Platform

The synthetic lethal target discovery approach can be adapted to identify druggable targets that do not kill cancer cells directly, but rather attract immune cells to destroy them. We are addressing the unmet medical need of this large group of patients by identifying novel immune evasion genes that (i) are activated by tumor suppressor gene loss and (ii) the effects of which can be reversed through inhibition with a small molecule as illustrated in Figure 3 below. In the first step, we perform an in vivo CRISPR-based screen using immune cell-mediated cell killing as the readout. This first step allows us to identify tumor suppressor genes linked to immune evasion. For the second step, we repeat the in vivo CRISPR screen in animals with an intact immune system looking for potential drug targets that reverse the immune evasion effects of the tumor suppressor gene deletion.

Figure 3. Discovery of novel drug targets that reverse the immune evasion effects of tumor suppressor gene loss requires two sequential in vivo CRISPR-based screens. In the first screen, a CRISPR library of several hundred known tumor suppressor genes is transfected into a syngeneic mouse tumor model, and tumor growth is measured under conditions of increasing immune pressure. “Hits” from this context discovery screen are tumor suppressor genes that are enriched in tumors that grow well even when exposed to anti-PD1 treatment. In the second screen, a CRISPR library of potential drug targets is introduced in a syngeneic mouse tumor model with and without a deletion of the tumor suppressor gene of interest and genes that when knocked out reverse the immune evasion effect of the known tumor suppressor gene are potential drug targets.

OUR PROGRAMS

TNG908

Overview

Our lead development candidate, TNG908, is a potent and selective oral small molecule inhibitor of PRMT5 that is synthetic lethal with MTAP deletion. We believe this interaction is one of the strongest and most prevalent synthetic lethal interactions in human cancers and represents a subset of synthetic lethality termed collateral lethality. Collateral lethality occurs when a “passenger” gene adjacent to a tumor suppressor gene is lost along with the “driver” gene. In this case, MTAP is the “passenger” and is frequently co-deleted with the “driver” CDKN2A gene (p16). The interaction occurs because MTAP-deleted cells accumulate high levels of the PRMT5 inhibitory co-factor MTA. As a result, PRMT5 is partially inhibited in MTAP-deleted cells, making those cells more sensitive than normal cells to further inhibition of PRMT5 activity.

Taking advantage of this unique interaction between PRMT5 inhibition and MTAP deletion requires a specific mechanism of inhibition called MTA cooperativity. TNG908 binds cooperatively with MTA to inhibit PRMT5 function by blocking access to the PRMT5 active site for both protein substrates and the activating PRMT5 co-factor S-adenosyl-L-methionine (SAM). This MTA-cooperative mechanism of inhibition selectively inhibits PRMT5 in tumor cells that have lost MTAP (MTAP-null) while being relatively inert in normal cells without MTAP deletion (MTAP WT). We believe TNG908 is differentiated from other non-MTAP selective PRMT5 inhibitors based on this mechanism and that it will have the potential for a large therapeutic window in patients with MTAP-deleted tumors, given that normal cells (without MTAP deletion) are largely spared, potentially limiting toxicity and allowing for deep and sustained target inhibition in tumor cells.

We are developing TNG908 for the treatment of patients with solid tumors with MTAP deletion, which occurs in 10% to 15% of all human tumors, including NSCLC, mesothelioma, pancreatic cancer, cholangiocarcinoma and GBM. In preclinical studies, TNG908 has demonstrated 15X selectivity for MTAP-null cancer cells over MTAP WT normal cells, anti-tumor effects in vitro and in vivo, and pharmacokinetics that support its potential to be a leading PRMT5 inhibitor if approved. In the first quarter of 2022, the FDA cleared the IND for the Phase 1/2 trial and granted Fast Track designation to TNG908. We plan to initiate a Phase 1/2 clinical trial in the second quarter of 2022 and have preliminary safety and efficacy data expected in the first half of 2023.

MTAP-deletion frequency in multiple solid tumors

A partial deletion of chromosome 9p21, driven by loss of the tumor suppressor gene CDKN2A, is the most common homozygous deletion in human cancer. MTAP is immediately adjacent to CDKN2A and is lost along with it in 80-90% of tumors, thus MTAP is one of the most commonly deleted genes across all cancer types. Based on The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) data and a 2014 publication by Lee et al, there are at least 15 cancer types where MTAP loss occurs in more than 10% of patients, including approximately 10% of non-squamous NSCLC, 20% of squamous NSCLC, 25% of bladder cancers, 30% to 50% of malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (MPNST) and 40% of GBM. Given that we believe this is a large and important opportunity for patients with cancer, we have multiple preclinical efforts ongoing to support the development of our lead product candidate, TNG908, including identification of clinical combinations therapies and potential resistance mechanisms, as well as the development of next generation inhibitors that we are designing to be more potent and selective for cells with MTAP deletion.

Figure 4. The frequency of MTAP deletion across tumor types as determined from analysis of TCGA and an indication specific publication

PRMT5 mechanism of action

PRMT5 has long been a therapeutic target of interest for cancer given its role in regulating proteins involved in multiple essential cellular functions, including RNA splicing, cell cycling, cell death, and metabolic signaling. PRMT5 is a protein arginine methyltransferase that modifies the activity of these proteins, which are critical for growth and viability of both normal and cancer cells.

PRMT5 methylates target proteins by removing a methyl group from SAM, the co-factor and methyl donor which is necessary for PRMT5 to modify its various substrates and transferring that methyl group to a specific residue on target proteins. This methyl modification, or “mark”, alters the function of the target protein, thereby regulating the cell processes for which the protein is important.

The function of PRMT5 is regulated in several ways, including by the endogenous inhibitor MTA. MTA directly competes with SAM for binding to the active site in PRMT5 but does not have a methyl donor, thus when present inhibits PRMT5 function.

MTA-cooperative PRMT5 inhibition as a novel mechanism with synthetic lethality in cancers with MTAP-deletion

Our differentiated approach with TNG908

The challenge of PRMT5 inhibitors with mechanisms of action that are not synthetic lethal with MTAP-deletion is that they kill rapidly growing normal cells (bone marrow cells in particular) as effectively as cancer cells and therefore the level needed to kill cancer cells is reduced by on-target, dose-limiting bone marrow toxicity. To address this problem, we designed TNG908 to be selectively active (synthetic lethal) in cancer cells that have a deletion of MTAP, which is not present in normal cells.

TNG908 binds PRMT5 cooperatively with MTA, which is distinct from non-MTAP selective PRMT5 inhibitors that compete with or cooperate with SAM. In normal, non-cancerous cells, MTA is degraded by the enzyme MTAP. When MTAP is lost in cancer cells intracellular MTA is elevated, but, importantly, MTA is not elevated in adjacent normal cells, as noted in Figure 5 below. TNG908 preferentially binds PRMT5 in the presence of MTA to cause inhibition of activity. As a result, TNG908 selectively kills MTAP-deleted tumor cells with high MTA levels while sparing normal cells (MTAP-WT).

Figure 5. Schematic of PRMT5 and MTAP functions.

PRMT5 and SAM are required in every tissue and cell type, and we believe PRMT5 inhibition with a SAM cooperative or competitive approach is likely to have substantial on-target, dose limiting toxicity in normal cells, which limits therapeutic efficacy.

Figure 6. TNG908 has a MTA-cooperative mechanism of action that is distinct from non-MTAP selective PRMT5 inhibitors that target the SAM/PRMT5 complex.

We compared the potency and selectivity of our development candidate TNG908 and a non-MTAP selective PRMT5 inhibitor, GSK3326595, in a panel of 200 cancer cell lines representing NSCLC, bladder cancer, pancreatic cancer, cancers of the central nervous system, leukemia and lymphoma. TNG908 demonstrated significant MTAP-selective inhibition of viability, while GSK3326595 showed no selectivity for MTAP-null cell lines over MTAP-WT.

Figure 7. TNG908 inhibits viability selectively in MTAP-null cancer cell lines. Cellular viability was determined in a panel of 200 cancer cell lines treated for seven days with either TNG908 or GSK3326595. Cell lines are color-coded by MTAP-status as indicated, and the maximal viability effect (% Amax) is plotted on the y-axis.

Further validation of our approach to selectively inhibit PRMT5 in MTAP-null cancer cells was achieved in vivo. Xenograft models differing only in MTAP status (MTAP-WT or MTAP-null) were treated with TNG908. PRMT5 symmetrically di-methylates specific arginine residues (SDMA-modification) in its substrate proteins, a modification that can be detected and quantified by specific antibodies as a direct measurement of PRMT5 activity.

Preclinical data summary

TNG908 is highly selective for PRMT5 against a panel of 38 methyltransferases at 10 μM, showing that TNG908 does not affect other biological processes regulated by these types of enzymes at concentrations well above the predicted clinical efficacious dose. We observed that TNG908 has excellent drug-like properties and is easily formulated for oral administration. Preclinical studies demonstrate that TNG908 has high passive permeability, low plasma protein binding, moderate clearance, and moderate oral bioavailability. Allometric scaling was performed to predict the human dose-exposure relationship and to estimate the human dose that would provide exposure associated with efficacy in mouse xenograft models. These analyses suggest the effective human dose will be in the range of 200-500 mg twice-daily (BID).

To determine the cellular potency and selectivity of TNG908 in MTAP-null tumors, we developed assays using engineered isogenic cancer cell lines that differ only by the presence or absence of MTAP. To determine pharmacodynamic potency and selectivity, a HAP1 MTAP-isogenic cell line pair was treated with TNG908 for 24 hours and PRMT5 activity was measured

by SDMA quantification. TNG908 inhibits PRMT5 in the MTAP-null HAP1 cell line with an IC50 of 5 nM, with marked selectivity over the MTAP-WT cell line. See representative data in Figure 8 below.

Figure 8. PRMT5 inhibition by TNG908 is dose-dependent and MTAP-selective.

In vitro in-cell western data demonstrating dose-dependent reduction of SDMA levels after 24 hours of TNG908 treatment in HAP1 MTAP-isogenic cancer cell lines.

For comparison, PRMT5 inhibitors that are not MTA-cooperative, have not demonstrated MTAP-selective PRMT5 inhibition, as summarized in the table below. These data show that TNG908 is MTAP-selective, and that its activity is on-target. Though the GSK3326595, JNJ-64619178 and Prelude compounds inhibit cellular viability consistent with their inhibition of PRMT5, none have been shown to selectively target MTAP-null cells.

Table 9. TNG908 is differentiated from non-MTAP selective PRMT5 inhibitors in ability to selectively inhibit viability in MTAP-null cells. Average IC50s from in vitro cellular viability assay with HAP1 MTAP-isogenic cell lines.

Consistent with in vitro data, TNG908 also demonstrates dose-dependent PRMT5 inhibition in vivo in an MTAP-null xenograft model. LN18 tumor-bearing mice were treated with TNG908 at 3, 10, 30 or 60 mg/kg BID for ten days. Plasma concentrations of TNG908 increased with dose, and tumoral SDMA-modified protein levels decreased in a dose-dependent manner.

Figure 10. PRMT5 inhibition with TNG908 is dose-dependent in vivo. LN18 (MTAP-null) tumor-bearing mice were dosed with TNG908 at 3, 10, 30, or 60 mg/kg BID for ten days. Tumors were harvested at the time points indicated, and the levels of a single SDMA-modified protein were determined by immunoblot. Tumors from the 3 mg/kg group were not harvested at 16 hours post-last dose.

TNG908 was evaluated in an engineered MTAP-null xenograft model, HCT116, a colon cancer cell line. Marked activity was observed at 90 mg/kg BID (Figure 11 below). In comparison, TNG908 had minimal effect on the HCT116 MTAP WT xenografts. Together with PK/PD data, these data demonstrate that TNG908 inhibition of PRMT5 suppresses tumor growth in an on-target and MTAP-selective manner.

Consistent with the inhibitory effects of MTA accumulation caused by MTAP-deletion, PRMT5 activity was reduced in MTAP-null tumors at baseline relative to MTAP-WT tumors. In Figure 11 below, HCT116 MTAP-isogenic xenograft models were generated by deleting endogenous MTAP to create an MTAP-null cell line. Tumor-bearing mice were dosed with TNG908 or vehicle at the indicated dose levels. SDMA-modified protein levels were determined by immunoblot analysis on tumors harvested eight hours after the last dose. When tumor-bearing mice were dosed with TNG908, >90% PRMT5 inhibition was observed in the MTAP-null tumors while PRMT5 inhibition in MTAP-WT tumors remained above the threshold for lethality.

Figure 11. TNG908 demonstrates strong, MTAP-selective anti-tumor activity in xenograft models. TNG908 selectively inhibits PRMT5 in MTAP-null cancer in vivo.

Consistent with these findings, TNG908 demonstrated significant and dose-dependent anti-tumor activity in over 50 xenograft models representing multiple tumor lineages (sample data shown in Figure 12) that did not have a bias to specific indications. Tumor regressions of -44%, -78% and -96% were demonstrated in additional MTAP-null PDX models representing cholangiocarcinoma, NSCLC and bladder cancer, respectively.

Figure 12. TNG908 demonstrates strong anti-tumor activity with regressions in MTAP-null xenograft models.

Additionally, TNG908 induces strong tumor regressions in xenograft models representing GBM (Figure 13), and has exposure in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) equivalent to plasma exposure in non-human primate studies. We believe this uniquely positions TNG908 as a potential treatment option for patients with MTAP-deleted tumors of the central nervous system (CNS) including GBM and CNS metastases of other MTAP-deleted solid tumors.

Figure 13. TNG908 demonstrates strong anti-tumor activity with regressions in MTAP-null xenograft models in GBM

Planned clinical trials

We have designed our Phase 1/2 first-in-human trial to evaluate the oral administration of TNG908 monotherapy in patients with MTAP-deleted tumors (See Figure 14 below). Our planned indications reflect the unmet medical need for new therapies in prevalent histologies, including NSCLC, mesothelioma, cholangiocarcinoma and GBM, as well as indications where there are limited treatment options with no standard of care such as MPNST. As TNG908 is designed to selectively work in cancers with MTAP loss, we intend to limit enrollment to patients with MTAP-deleted tumors using next generation sequencing (NGS).

The dose escalation phase will evaluate safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and efficacy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic cancer of any histology with an MTAP deletion. Following determination of the optimal efficacious dose, we will evaluate the efficacy of TNG908 in multiple histology-specific expansion arms including MPNST, NSCLC, mesothelioma, cholangiocarcinoma and GBM. In parallel, we will enroll a histology agnostic cohort to provide optionality for a registration strategy in all tumors regardless of histology if broad activity is observed. Given that MTAP deletion occurs in 10% to 15% of human cancers, we may expand into other histology-specific cohorts based on activity observed in the Phase 1/2 trial.

In the first quarter of 2022, the FDA cleared the IND for the Phase 1/2 trial and granted Fast Track designation to TNG908. We plan to initiate the Phase 1/2 clinical trial of TNG908 in the second quarter of 2022. We expect to report preliminary safety and efficacy data for TNG908 in the first half of 2023. This program is excluded from the Gilead Agreement.

Figure 14. TNG908 First-in-human trial schema.

Next-generation PRMT5 Inhibitors

Given the significant addressable patient population with MTAP-deleted cancers, we are investing additional resources in our PRMT5 franchise to progress a superior candidate with increased potency, MTAP-deletion selectivity and once daily dosing. We have next-generation PRMT5 inhibitor compounds in preclinical development that use the same mechanism of action as TNG908 but have demonstrated more potent and selective activity in our xenograft models to date. We believe additional potency may allow stronger target inhibition and thus clinical efficacy and additional selectivity for MTAP-null cells may provide a wider therapeutic index.

An exemplar from our next-generation lead series is significantly more potent and selective for MTAP-null cells relative to TNG908 and the non-MTAP selective PRMT5 inhibitor, GSK3326595. In a cell line panel containing both MTAP WT and MTAP-null cell lines representing solid tumor lineages, the exemplar demonstrates 67 selectivity for MTAP-null cells over MTAP WT cells (Figure 15).

Figure 15. Next-generation PRMT5 inhibitor exemplar compound data demonstrates strong MTAP selectivity in 128 cancer cell lines as compared to TNG908 or GSK3326595.

We believe our next-generation compounds have the potential to be more effective than our lead PRMT5 inhibitor, TNG908, with a yet wider therapeutic index. If additional preclinical or clinical evaluation of our next-generation compounds supports this hypothesis, we may elect to promote a next-generation compound as our lead PRMT5 inhibitor, which would result in a delay to our development timeline of approximately 12 to 18 months.

Our early development programs

Target 3

Target 3 was developed using our target discovery immune evasion platform which identifies druggable targets that do not kill cancer cells directly, but rather attract immune cells to destroy them. We identify novel immune evasion genes that (i) are activated by tumor suppressor gene loss and (ii) the effects of which can be reversed through inhibition with a small molecule.

Using in vivo CRISPR-based screens in syngeneic mouse tumor models, we identified serine-threonine kinase 11 (STK11) loss-of-function mutations as a tumor suppressor gene that when inactivated confers resistance to the efficacy of PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitors. STK11 loss-of-function mutations occurs in approximately 15% of NSCLC, 15% of cervical cancers, 10% carcinoma of unknown primary, 5% of breast cancers and 3% of pancreatic cancers. STK11 loss-of-function mutations trigger complex changes in both cancer cell signaling and in the broader tumor microenvironment. Retrospective analysis of human clinical data by multiple academic centers, including by Dr. Ferdinandos Skoulidis and Dr. John Heymach (MD Anderson Cancer Center), subsequently identified STK11 as a marker for the lack of durable clinical benefit to pembrolizumab + chemotherapy in NSCLC patients, demonstrating that STK11 loss-of-function mutations correlate with primary resistance to anti-PD1 therapy.

We have generated genetically engineered mouse tumor models that consistently recapitulate the immunosuppressive microenvironment caused by genetic STK11 loss-of-function mutations and have conducted several target discovery screens using these same models. These models are used to discover novel targets to reverse the immune evasion effect of this genetic alteration.

Our exemplar molecule demonstrated strong genetic and pharmacologic validation showing reprogramming of the tumor microenvironment and strong sensitization to anti-PD1 therapy in a STK11-mutant dependent manner. In a syngeneic mouse tumor model, where STK11 mutations drive resistance to immune checkpoint blockade, Target 3 inhibition, in combination with an anti-PD1 antibody, resulted in near or complete tumor regressions in eight out of eight treated mice. Treatment was stopped on Day 32 and the six of eight mice that were completely tumor-free at that time remained tumor-free for 51 days with no further treatment. Furthermore, when tumor cells were re-implanted in these mice on day 83, they were rejected, demonstrating the induction of immune memory (Figure 16).

Figure 16: Pharmacologic proof-of-concept for Target 3 inhibition in STK11 mutant MC38 mice.

We expect to advance a development candidate in the second quarter of 2022 and file an IND in 2023. The clinical development plan for this program in STK11-mutant cancers will combine the power of genetic patient selection for immunotherapy with a novel approach to reversing tumor-intrinsic immune evasion. This program is excluded from the Gilead Agreement.

USP1

We identified USP1 as a strong synthetic lethal target for BRCA1 loss-of-function using CRISPR-based screens in a panel of BRCA1-mutant versus wild-type cancer cell lines (see Figure 17 below). This discovery has since been independently reported by other groups, including Dr. Alan D’Andrea (DFCI). Advanced lead compounds that inhibit this target have strong in vitro and in vivo activity in BRCA1-mutant breast cancer. Our lead molecules also have strong activity in BRCA2-mutant patient derived xenografts, including both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutant models that are intrinsically resistant to PARP inhibition.

In addition to the single-agent activity observed with USP1 inhibition in vitro (Figure 18) and in vivo (Figure 19) our USP1 inhibitors demonstrate strong combination synergy with PARP inhibition in vitro and in vivo including several primary, PARP resistant PDX models. We believe these data provide the basis for the future clinical trials of a USP1 inhibitor both as a single agent and in combination with PARP inhibitors. As such, USP1 has the potential to treat a patient population that is comparable in size to the PARP inhibitor market (BRCA1 and BRCA2). BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations are present in approximately 15% of ovarian cancers, 10% of breast cancers, 10% of prostate cancers, 5% of endometrial cancers and 5% of pancreatic cancers. We expect to advance a development candidate in the in the second half of 2022 and file an IND in 2023.

Preclinical data summary

Figure 17. Volcano plot shows analysis of CRISPR screens performed in a panel of BRCA1 WT vs. mut cell lines where knockout of USP1 using multiple independent single strand guide RNAs (sgRNAs) leads to selective killing of BRCA1 mutant tumor cells. The clinically proven PARP-BRCA interaction was also identified in this screen as expected.

USP1 is a deubiquitinating enzyme that facilitates DNA damage response (DDR) repair. Our preclinical pharmacology studies show that USP1 inhibition halt the proliferation of a subset of breast and ovarian cancer cell lines with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, as well as a subset of NSCLC cell lines that do not have BRCA1/2 mutations. We are currently conducting experiments to define patient selection markers for these BRCA1/2 WT cell lines.

Our lead series demonstrate nanomolar potency against USP1, as measured by cytotoxicity in BRCA1 mutant cells, and upregulation of mono-ubiquitinated PCNA as exemplified in Figure 18. Consistent with in vitro data, our lead series also exhibit potent and dose-dependent anti-tumor activity in the MDA-MB-436 xenograft model (BRCA1 mutant breast cancer cell line) and in the BRCA1/2 wildtype lung cancer xenograft model (NCI-H1792) as shown in Figure 19.

Figure 18. Tango lead series USP1 inhibitor demonstrates selective viability effect and target engagement.

(Left) In vitro assay demonstrating cellular viability effects in exemplar BRCA1 mutant but not WT cell line following ten days of compound treatment. (Right) In vitro assay demonstrating dose dependent increase in monoubiquitinated PCNA, a USP1 substrate, in BRCA1 mutant cell line following 24 hours of treatment.

Figure 19. Lead series USP1 inhibitor demonstrates in vivo anti-tumor activity in human breast and lung cancer xenograft models.

The DNA damage repair (DDR) pathways regulated by USP1 are not currently targeted by any marketed drug. Moreover, we performed genome-wide CRISPR-Cas9 screens in the presence and absence of our USP1 inhibitors and confirmed that USP1 inhibition has a differentiated and novel mechanism of action relative to other DDR-based inhibitors, including PARP inhibitors. We expect this molecule to have both single agent activity in PARPi-naïve and potentially some PARPi-resistant cancers.

Preclinically, we have demonstrated strong synergy with PARP inhibitors in both in vitro and in vivo as shown in Figure 20 and Figure 21. This program is excluded from the Gilead Agreement.

Figure 20. USP1 inhibition sensitizes PARP inhibitor in BRCA1and BRCA2 mutant contexts

Figure 21. USP1 inhibition demonstrates significant combination benefit with PARP inhibitor in breast cancer and ovarian cancer PDX models.

Collaboration and License Agreements

Collaboration and License Agreement with Gilead Sciences

In August 2020, we entered into an amended and restated research collaboration and license agreement, which we refer to as the Gilead Agreement, with Gilead Sciences, Inc. The Gilead Agreement expanded our 2018 collaboration with Gilead, or the 2018 Gilead Agreement. Pursuant to the Gilead Agreement we use our proprietary functional genomics-based discovery platform to identify and develop novel immune evasion targets during a seven-year period ending in August 2027, or the Research Term. During the Research Term, Gilead has the option to obtain exclusive, worldwide licenses to develop and commercialize products directed to up to 15 targets validated in the collaboration. Prior to exercising its option for a program, Gilead may “extend” such program, in which case we will further collaborate with Gilead during the Research Term to discover and develop immuno-oncology treatments directed to such target(s), potentially through early clinical development and be eligible to receive research extension payments from Gilead. Gilead will retain its option rights to any such extended program. For up to five programs licensed by Gilead, we have the option to co-develop and co-promote the lead product for such program in the United States, subject to certain exceptions, and eligible to receive milestone payments and royalties on ex-U.S. sales.

Under the terms of the Gilead Agreement, we received an upfront payment of $125.0 million in addition to an upfront payment of $50.0 million received under the 2018 Gilead Agreement. We also received a $20.0 million equity investment in connection with the Gilead Agreement, and as of December 31, 2021, we received $21.1 million in license fees and $14.0

million in option-extension fees. We are eligible to receive up to an additional $410.0 million per program in license, research extension, and clinical, regulatory and commercial milestone payments. We are also eligible to receive tiered royalties in the first decile on net sales by Gilead on a country-by-country and product-by-product basis until the later of (i) the expiration of the last valid claim of our patents or, in some instances, certain of Gilead’s patents, in each case covering such product in such country or (ii) ten years after the first commercial sale of such product in such country. For those products that we opt to co-develop and co-promote in the United States, we and Gilead will equally split profits and losses from the sales of such products in the United States, as well as development costs for such products attributable to the United States. For such products, we will remain eligible to receive certain of the $410.0 million per program milestone payments related to clinical and regulatory milestones as well as commercial milestones and royalties in the first decile on net sales outside the United States.

Either party may terminate the Gilead Agreement if the other party materially breaches the terms of such agreement, subject to specified notice and cure provisions, or enters into bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings. Additionally, Gilead may terminate the agreement for any or no reason, in its entirety or on a program-by-program basis, upon specified written notice. If we terminate the Gilead Agreement for Gilead’s material breach, or Gilead terminates the Gilead Agreement without cause, then Gilead is obligated to negotiate with us in good faith for a specified period regarding the transfer by Gilead of certain assets and the provision by Gilead of certain assistance to enable us to continue the research, development and commercialization of products under any terminated programs.

To date, Gilead has licensed two of our programs and has research-extended two programs under the Gilead agreements.

Our collaboration with Gilead excludes our lead programs, PRMT5, Target 3, USP1 as well as a growing pipeline of novel targets identified in our non-immune related target discovery screens. We also retain the right to identify and validate targets outside the scope of our collaboration with Gilead (all cell-autonomous targets, exclusive of those in immune evasion contexts), and to develop and commercialize products directed to such targets, on our own or in collaboration with third parties.

License Agreement with Medivir AB

In March 2020, we entered into a license agreement, or the Medivir Agreement, with Medivir AB, or Medivir, pursuant to which we obtained a worldwide, royalty-bearing, exclusive license under certain current and/or future patents and know-how of Medivir, to research, develop and commercialize products that are covered by such licensed patents or otherwise modulate USP1.

Under the terms of the Medivir Agreement, we are obligated to pay Medivir in connection with development, regulatory and commercial activities. We have agreed to make certain milestone payments of (i) $1.4 million in the aggregate for the first licensed product that achieves specified clinical milestones plus $25.0 million for the first licensed product that achieves specified regulatory approval and sales milestones, in each case, in either of the first two specified genetic contexts and (ii) $0.7 million in the aggregate if that first licensed product achieves specified clinical milestones plus $5.0 million if that first licensed product achieves specified regulatory and sales milestones for a third genetic context or the second licensed product achieves such specified development, regulatory and sales milestones in either of the first two specified genetic contexts. We have the right to reduce these milestone payments by a specified amount in the event the licensed product is not covered by Medivir’s patents or if payments are due to a third party for a license under such third party’s intellectual property rights. We are also obligated to pay Medivir a low single-digit royalty on net sales of any product covered by a licensed patent.

Payments in respect of net sales or sublicense in a country shall remain in force on a product-by-product, country-by-country basis, with respect to products that are not covered by a licensed patent or certain of our patents, for ten years from the date of first commercial sale in such country, and products that are covered by a licensed patent or certain of our patents, until the expiration date of the last to expire of the licensed patents covering such product or its manufacture or use in the applicable country. No milestones have been achieved to date.

The Medivir Agreement expires on the date of expiration of all royalty obligations. Either party may terminate the Medivir Agreement earlier upon an uncured material breach of the other party.

Manufacturing

Our lead investigational products are small molecule inhibitors that can be readily manufactured without requiring any specialized equipment or processes. We do not own or operate, and currently have no plans to establish any manufacturing facilities. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third-party Contract Development and Manufacturing Organizations, or

CDMOs for the manufacturing, packaging, labeling and distribution of our investigational products for preclinical and clinical testing, as well as for commercial manufacturing if any of our investigational products obtain marketing approval. A team of internal experts and consultants oversees activities at contracted CDMOs with the goal of ensuring our investigational products are being manufactured under current good manufacturing practices, or cGMP. At present, we have signed manufacturing and supply agreements for drug substance and drug product to support the first-in-human study of our PRMT5 development candidate TNG908. Currently, all manufacturing of TNG908 drug substance and drug product to be used in our planned clinical trial in the U.S. is conducted by one manufacturer. We believe that the contracted CDMO has the capacity to support our planned registrational studies, in addition to the first-in-human study for TNG908. We plan to expand and diversify our supply chain by identifying and contracting other CDMOs with the capacity and expertise to support TNG908 and other investigational products in our pipeline and to manufacture commercial supply of our drugs (if those therapies obtain regulatory approval).

Intellectual Property

We strive to protect and enhance the proprietary technology, inventions and improvements that are commercially important to the development of our business and our product candidates, including seeking, maintaining and defending patent rights, whether developed internally or licensed from third parties. We also rely on trade secrets relating to our proprietary target discovery technology platform and on know-how, continuing technological innovation and in-licensing opportunities to develop, strengthen and maintain our proprietary position in the field of precision oncology that may be important for the development of our business and product candidates. We additionally may rely on regulatory protection afforded through data exclusivity, market exclusivity and patent term extensions, where available. Patent rights and regulatory protections are key factors that determine the period of market exclusivity for products in our industry. It is during the period of market exclusivity that, we believe, our potential future products have their greatest commercial value.

Our commercial success may depend in part on our ability to: obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for commercially important technology, inventions and know-how related to our business; defend and enforce our patents; preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets; and operate without infringing the valid enforceable patents and proprietary rights of third parties. Our ability to limit third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing our product candidates (and any future products that may be approved for marketing by regulatory authorities) may depend on the extent to which we have rights under valid and enforceable licenses, patents, or trade secrets that cover these activities. In some cases, enforcement of these rights may depend on third-party licensors. With respect to both licensed and company-owned intellectual property, we cannot be sure that patents will be granted with respect to any of our pending patent applications or with respect to any patent applications filed by us in the future, nor can we be sure that any of our existing patents or any patents that may be granted to us in the future will be commercially useful in protecting our commercial products and methods of manufacturing the same and to the extent such patents are commercially useful in protecting our commercial products or methods of manufacturing, such patents may be challenged or invalidated or otherwise become less useful in protecting our commercial products and methods of manufacturing.

Because a significant portion of a pharmaceutical product’s patent protection can elapse during the course of developing and obtaining regulatory approval of the product, certain countries, including the U.S., provide compensatory mechanisms to extend patent terms for pharmaceutical products. Patent expiration dates noted in the following paragraphs refer to statutory expiration dates and do not take into account any potential patent term adjustment or extension that may be available, or any potential disclaimers that may be needed to obtain certain patents that may reduce the term of such patents to correspond to that of earlier-expiring patents. There is no guarantee that any of our product candidates would be eligible for patent term extensions.

PRMT5 inhibitors

We exclusively own two patent families covering the composition of matter and methods of use for our product candidate TNG908 and other structurally related PRMT5 inhibitors. Patent applications are pending in the United States, Patent Cooperation Treaty, Argentina, Pakistan and Taiwan in one of the families, and a provisional United States patent application is pending in the other. No patents have yet been granted in either of the two families. Any issued patents covering TNG908 would be expected to expire no earlier than 2041.

Additionally, we exclusively own six patent families covering other PRMT5 inhibitors and their methods of use with expiration dates ranging from 2039 to 2043. A US patent has been granted in one of the families. Patent Cooperation Treaty applications or United States provisional patent applications are pending in the others.

USP1 inhibitors

We own two patent families covering USP1 inhibitors and methods of use thereof. Any patents issuing from each of these two patent families are expected to expire no earlier than 2042. One of the patent families is exclusively owned by us, and the remaining one is jointly owned by us and Medivir AB and exclusively licensed to us under the Medivir Agreement.

Target 3 Portfolio

We exclusively own one patent family relating to Target 3, including composition of matter and methods of use thereof. Any issued patents covering Target 3 composition of matter, or methods of use thereof, are expected to expire no earlier than 2042.

Government Regulation

The FDA and other regulatory authorities at federal, state and local levels, as well as in foreign countries, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, clinical trials, manufacture, quality control, import, export, safety, effectiveness, labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, recordkeeping, approval, advertising, promotion, marketing, post-approval monitoring and post-approval reporting of drugs. We, along with our vendors, contract research organizations, or CROs, clinical investigators and contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, will be required to navigate the various preclinical, clinical, manufacturing and commercial approval requirements of the governing regulatory agencies of the countries in which we wish to conduct studies or seek approval of our product candidates. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals of drugs and ensuring subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

In the United States, the FDA regulates drug products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FD&C Act, its implementing regulations, and other federal statutes and regulations. Drugs are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. If we fail to comply with applicable FDA or other regulatory requirements at any time with respect to product development, clinical testing, approval or any other regulatory requirements relating to product manufacture, processing, handling, storage, quality control, safety, pharmacovigilance, marketing, advertising, promotion, packaging, labeling, export, import, distribution or sale, we may become subject to administrative or judicial sanctions or other legal consequences. These sanctions or consequences could include, among other things, the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, issuance of clinical holds for ongoing studies, suspension or revocation of approved applications, warning or untitled letters, product withdrawals or recalls, product seizures, relabeling or repackaging, total or partial suspensions of manufacturing or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties or criminal prosecution.

Our product candidates must be approved for therapeutic indications by the FDA before they may be marketed in the United States. For drug product candidates regulated under the FD&C Act, FDA must approve a New Drug Application, or NDA. The process generally involves the following:

•

completion of extensive preclinical studies in accordance with applicable regulations, including studies conducted in accordance with good laboratory practice, or GLP, requirements;

•

completion of the manufacture, under cGMP conditions, of the drug substance and drug product to be used in human clinical trials along with required analytical and stability testing;

•

submission to the FDA of an IND, which must become effective before clinical trials may begin and must be updated annually and when certain changes are made (for example, we received clearance of our IND application for TNG908 in the first quarter of 2022);

•

approval by an institutional review board, or IRB, or independent ethics committee at each clinical trial site before each trial may be initiated at that site;

•

performance of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials in accordance with applicable IND regulations, good clinical practice, or GCP, requirements and other clinical trial-related regulations to establish the safety and efficacy of the investigational product for each proposed indication;

•

preparation and submission to the FDA of an NDA;

•

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

•

satisfactory completion of one or more FDA pre-approval inspections of the manufacturing facility or facilities where the drug will be produced to assess compliance with cGMP requirements to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the drug’s identity, strength, quality and purity;

•

satisfactory completion of FDA audit of the clinical trial sites that generated the data in support of the NDA;

•

payment of user fees for FDA review of the NDA; and

•

FDA review and approval of the NDA, including, where applicable, consideration of the views of any FDA advisory committee, prior to any commercial marketing or sale of the drug in the United States.

Preclinical studies and clinical trials for drugs

Before testing any drug in humans, the product candidate must undergo rigorous preclinical testing. Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess safety and in some cases to establish the rationale for therapeutic use. The conduct of preclinical studies is subject to federal and state regulation and requirements, including GLP requirements for safety/toxicology studies. The results of the preclinical studies, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, must be submitted 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 clinical trials may begin. An IND includes the general investigational plan and the protocol(s) for clinical studies, the results of animal and in vitro studies assessing the toxicology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacology, and pharmacodynamic characteristics of the product; chemistry, manufacturing, and controls information; and any available human data or literature to support the use of the investigational product. Some long-term preclinical testing may continue after the IND is submitted. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, raises concerns or questions about the conduct of the clinical trial, including concerns that human research subjects will be exposed to unreasonable health risks, and imposes a full or partial clinical hold. A clinical hold can also be imposed once a trial has already begun, thereby halting the trial until any safety concerns or deficiencies articulated by FDA are corrected.

The clinical stage of development involves the administration of the product candidate to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, who generally are physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control, in accordance with GCP requirements, which include the requirements that all research subjects 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, inclusion and exclusion criteria and the parameters and criteria to be used in monitoring safety and evaluating effectiveness. 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 compared to the 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. The FDA, the IRB, or the sponsor may suspend or discontinue a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. There also are requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trials to public registries. Information about clinical trials, including results for clinical trials other than Phase 1 investigations, must be submitted within specific timeframes for publication on www.ClinicalTrials.gov, a clinical trials database maintained by the National Institutes of Health.

A sponsor who wishes to conduct a clinical trial outside of the United States 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, FDA may nevertheless accept the results of the study in support of an NDA if the study was conducted in accordance with GCP requirements, and the FDA is able to validate the data through independent analysis and an onsite inspection if deemed necessary.

Clinical trials to evaluate therapeutic indications to support NDAs for marketing approval are typically conducted in three sequential phases, which may overlap or be combined.

•

Phase 1 — Phase 1 clinical trials involve initial introduction of the investigational product in a limited population of healthy human volunteers or patients with the target disease or condition. These studies are typically designed to test the safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism and distribution of the investigational product in humans, excretion, the side effects associated with increasing doses, and, if possible, to gain early evidence of effectiveness.

•

Phase 2 — Phase 2 clinical trials typically involve administration of the investigational product to a limited patient population with a specified disease or condition to evaluate the drug’s potential efficacy, to determine the optimal dosages and dosing schedule and to identify possible adverse side effects and safety risks.

•

Phase 3 — Phase 3 clinical trials typically involve administration of the investigational product to an expanded patient population to further evaluate dosage, to provide statistically significant evidence of clinical efficacy and to further test for safety, generally at multiple geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. These clinical trials are intended to establish the overall risk/benefit ratio of the investigational product and to provide an adequate basis for product approval and physician labeling. Generally, two adequate and well-controlled Phase 3 trials are required by the FDA for approval of an NDA.

In the first quarter of 2022, we received clearance of our IND application for TNG908 to initiate a Phase 1/2 clinical trial.

In August 2018, the FDA released a draft guidance titled “Expansion Cohorts: Use in First-In-Human Clinical Trials to Expedite Development of Oncology Drugs and Biologics,” which outlines how drug developers can utilize an adaptive trial design commonly referred to as a seamless trial design in early stages of oncology drug development (i.e., the first-in-human clinical trial) to compress the traditional three phases of trials into one continuous trial called an expansion cohort trial. Information to support the design of individual expansion cohorts are included in IND applications and assessed by FDA. Expansion cohort trials can potentially bring efficiency to drug development and reduce development costs and time.

Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials or post-marketing studies, 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 and are commonly intended to generate additional safety data regarding use of the product in a clinical setting. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the completion of Phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of NDA approval.

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials, among other information, must be submitted at least annually to the FDA. Written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators 15 days after the trial sponsor determines the information qualifies for reporting for serious and unexpected suspected adverse events, findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human volunteers and any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The sponsor must also notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction as soon as possible but in no case later than seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information.

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

U.S. marketing approval for drugs

Assuming successful completion of the required clinical testing, the results of the preclinical studies and clinical trials, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacture, controls and proposed labeling, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA package requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. An NDA must contain proof of the drug’s safety and efficacy for the requested indications and the marketing application is required to include both negative and ambiguous results of preclinical studies and clinical trials, as well as positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls, and proposed labeling, among other things. 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 drug to the satisfaction of the FDA. The FDA must approve an NDA before a drug may be marketed in the United States.

The FDA reviews all submitted NDAs to ensure they are sufficiently complete to permit substantive review before it accepts them for filing and may request additional information rather than accepting the NDA for filing. The FDA must make a decision on accepting an NDA for filing within 60 days of receipt, and such decision could include a refusal to file by the FDA. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the NDA. The FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether the product is safe and effective for the indications sought and whether the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packaged or held meets standards, including cGMP requirements, designed to assure and preserve the product’s continued identity, strength, quality and purity. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, the FDA targets ten months, from the filing

date, in which to complete its initial review of a new molecular entity NDA and respond to the applicant, and 6 months from the filing date of a new molecular entity NDA for Priority Review. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard or priority NDAs, and the review process is often extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. Further, under PDUFA, as amended, each NDA must be accompanied by a substantial user fee.

The FDA also may require submission of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, if it believes that a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy is necessary to ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh its risks. A REMS can include use of risk evaluation and mitigation strategies like medication guides, physician communication plans, assessment plans, and/or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries, special monitoring or other risk-minimization tools.

The FDA may refer an application for a novel drug to an advisory committee. An advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, which reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and are adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA may inspect one or more clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCP and other requirements and the integrity of the clinical data submitted to the FDA.

After evaluating the NDA and all related information, including the advisory committee recommendation, if any, and inspection reports regarding the manufacturing facilities and clinical trial sites, the FDA may issue an approval letter, or, in some cases, a Complete Response Letter. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application is not ready for approval. A Complete Response Letter generally contains a statement of specific conditions that must be met in order to secure final approval of the NDA. The FDA may require additional clinical or preclinical testing or recommend other actions, such as requests for additional information or clarification, that the applicant might take in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. Even with submission of this additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. If and when those conditions have been met to the FDA’s satisfaction, the FDA will typically issue an approval letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for indications.

Even if the FDA approves a product, it may limit the approved indications for use of the product, require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, require that post-approval studies, including Phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further assess a product’s safety after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution and use restrictions or other risk management mechanisms under a REMS, which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-marketing studies or surveillance programs. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes, and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

Orphan drug designation and exclusivity

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan drug designation to a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is a disease or condition with either a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 individuals in the United States when there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making the product available in the United States for the disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an NDA. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the generic 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, although companies developing orphan-designated products are eligible for certain incentives, including tax credits for qualified clinical testing and waiver of application fees.

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 a seven-year period of marketing exclusivity during which the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same therapeutic agent for the same indication, except in limited circumstances,

such as a subsequent product’s showing of clinical superiority over the product with orphan exclusivity or where the original applicant cannot produce sufficient quantities of product.

Competitors, however, may receive approval of different therapeutic agents for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity or obtain approval for the same therapeutic agent for a different indication than that for which the orphan product has exclusivity. Orphan product exclusivity could block the approval of one of our products for seven years if a competitor obtains approval for the same therapeutic agent for the same indication before we do, unless we are able to demonstrate that our product is clinically superior. If an orphan designated product receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what is designated, it may not be entitled to orphan exclusivity.

Expedited development and review programs for drugs

The FDA maintains several programs intended to facilitate and expedite development and review of new drugs to address unmet medical needs in the treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions. These programs include Fast Track designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation, Priority Review and Accelerated Approval, and the purpose of these programs is to get important new drugs to patients more quickly than standard FDA review timelines typically permit.

A new drug is eligible for Fast Track designation if it is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for such disease or condition. Fast track designation applies to the combination of the product candidate and the specific indication for which it is being studied. Fast Track designation provides increased opportunities for sponsor interactions with the FDA during preclinical and clinical development, in addition to the potential for rolling review once a marketing application is filed. Rolling review means that the FDA may review portions of the marketing application before the sponsor submits the complete application. In February 2022, the FDA granted Fast Track designation for TNG-908.

In addition, a new drug may be eligible for Breakthrough Therapy designation if it is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. Breakthrough Therapy designation provides all the features of Fast Track designation in addition to as well as more intensive FDA interaction and guidance.

Any product submitted to the FDA for approval, including a product with Fast Track or Breakthrough Therapy designation, may also be eligible for additional FDA programs intended to expedite the review and approval process, including Priority Review designation and Accelerated Approval. A product is eligible for Priority Review, once an NDA is submitted, if the product that is the subject of the marketing application has the potential to provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a serious disease or condition. Under priority review, the FDA’s goal date to take action on the marketing application is six months compared to ten months for a standard review. Products are eligible for Accelerated Approval if they can be shown to have an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or an effect on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality, which is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments.

Accelerated Approval is usually contingent on a sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, adequate and well-controlled post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the product’s clinical benefit. The FDA may withdraw approval of a drug or an indication approved under Accelerated Approval if, for example, the confirmatory trial fails to verify the predicted clinical benefit of the product.

Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or the time period for FDA review or approval may not be shortened. Furthermore, these FDA programs do not change the scientific or medical standards for approval or the quality of evidence necessary to support approval, though they may expedite the development or review process.

Pediatric information and pediatric exclusivity

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, as amended, certain NDAs and NDA supplements must contain data that can be used to assess the safety and efficacy of the product candidate for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of pediatric data or full or partial waivers. The FD&C Act requires

that a sponsor who is planning to submit a marketing application for a product candidate 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, or 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. The FDA and the sponsor must reach an agreement on the PSP. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to a drug for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted, except that PREA will apply to an original NDA for a new active ingredient that is orphan-designated if the drug is a molecularly targeted cancer product intended for the treatment of an adult cancer and is directed at a molecular target that FDA determines to be substantially relevant to the growth or progression of a pediatric cancer.

A drug can also obtain pediatric exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods and patent terms. This six-month exclusivity may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric study that adequately responds to an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a study.

U.S. post-approval requirements for drugs

Drugs manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to recordkeeping, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, reporting of adverse experiences and promotion and advertising requirements. FDA's advertising and promotion requirements 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 approved products for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such uses. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, including not only by company employees but also by agents of the company or those speaking on the company’s behalf, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability, including investigation by federal and state authorities. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in, among other things, adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties, including liabilities under the False Claims Act where products obtain reimbursement under federal health care programs. Promotional materials for approved drugs must be submitted to the FDA in conjunction with their first use or first publication. Further, for certain modifications to the drug, including changes in indications, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain prior FDA approval of an NDA supplement, which may require the development of additional data or preclinical studies and clinical trials.

The FDA may impose a number of post-approval requirements as a condition of approval of an NDA. For example, the FDA may require post-market testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization. In addition, manufacturers and their subcontractors involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with ongoing regulatory requirements, including cGMPs, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements on sponsors and their CMOs. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and, depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting requirements upon the sponsor and any third-party manufacturers that a sponsor may use. Manufacturers and other parties involved in the drug supply chain for prescription drug products must also comply with product tracking and tracking requirements and notify the FDA of counterfeit, diverted, stolen and intentionally adulterated products or products that are otherwise unfit for distribution in the United States. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP and other aspects of regulatory compliance. Failure to comply with statutory and regulatory requirements may subject a manufacturer to possible legal or regulatory action, such as warning letters, suspension of manufacturing, product seizures, injunctions, civil penalties or criminal prosecution.

The FDA may withdraw approval of a product if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information, requirements for

post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks, or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties; and

•

consent decrees, corporate integrity agreements, debarment or exclusion from federal healthcare programs; or mandated modification of promotional materials and labeling and issuance of corrective information.

Regulation of companion diagnostics

Companion diagnostics provide information that is essential for the safe and effective use of a corresponding drug. A companion diagnostic may be used to help identify patients who are most likely to benefit from a particular therapeutic product; identify patients likely to be at increased risk for serious side effects as a result of treatment with a particular therapeutic product; or monitor response to treatment with a particular therapeutic product for the purpose of adjusting treatment to achieve improved safety or effectiveness. Companion diagnostics are regulated as medical devices by the FDA. In the United States, the FD&C Act, and its implementing regulations, and other federal and state statutes and regulations govern, among other things, medical device design and development, preclinical and clinical testing, premarket clearance or approval, registration and listing, manufacturing, labeling, storage, advertising and promotion, sales and distribution, export and import, and post-market surveillance. Unless an exemption or FDA exercise of enforcement discretion applies, diagnostic tests generally require marketing clearance or approval from the FDA prior to commercialization. The two primary types of FDA marketing authorization applicable to a medical device are clearance of a premarket notification, or 510(k), and approval of a PMA.

To obtain 510(k) clearance for a medical device, or for certain modifications to devices that have received 510(k) clearance, a manufacturer must submit a premarket notification demonstrating that the proposed device is substantially equivalent to a previously cleared 510(k) device or to a pre-amendment device that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or a predicate device, for which the FDA has not yet called for the submission of a PMA. If the FDA determines that the subject device is substantially equivalent to the predicate device, the subject device may be cleared for marketing. The 510(k) premarket notification pathway generally takes from three to 12 months from the date the application is completed, but can take significantly longer.

A PMA must be supported by valid scientific evidence, which typically requires extensive data, including technical, preclinical, clinical and manufacturing data, to demonstrate to the FDA’s satisfaction the safety and effectiveness of the device. For diagnostic tests, a PMA typically includes data regarding analytical and clinical validation studies. As part of its review of the PMA, the FDA will conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities to ensure compliance with the quality system regulation, or QSR, which requires manufacturers to follow design, testing, control, documentation and other quality assurance procedures. The FDA’s review of an initial PMA is required by statute to take between six to ten months, although the process typically takes longer, and may require several years to complete. If the FDA evaluations of both the PMA and the manufacturing facilities are favorable, the FDA will either issue an approval letter or an approvable letter, which usually contains a number of conditions that must be met in order to secure the final approval of the PMA. If the FDA’s evaluation of the PMA or manufacturing facilities is not favorable, the FDA will deny the approval of the PMA or issue a not approvable letter. A not approvable letter will outline the deficiencies in the application and, where practical, will identify what is necessary to make the PMA approvable. Once granted, PMA approval may be withdrawn by the FDA if compliance with post-approval requirements, conditions of approval or other regulatory standards is not maintained or problems are identified following initial marketing.

On July 31, 2014, the FDA issued a final guidance document addressing the development and approval process for “In Vitro Companion Diagnostic Devices.” According to the guidance document, for novel therapeutic products that depend on the use of a diagnostic test and where the diagnostic device could be essential for the safe and effective use of the corresponding therapeutic product, the companion diagnostic device should be developed and approved or cleared contemporaneously with

the therapeutic, although the FDA recognizes that there may be cases when contemporaneous development may not be possible. However, in cases where a drug cannot be used safely or effectively without the companion diagnostic, the FDA’s guidance indicates it will generally not approve the drug without the approval or clearance of the diagnostic device.

Once cleared or approved, the companion diagnostic device must adhere to post-marketing requirements including the requirements of the FDA’s QSR, adverse event reporting, recalls and corrections along with product marketing requirements and limitations. Like drug makers, companion diagnostic makers are subject to unannounced FDA inspections at any time during which the FDA will conduct an audit of the product(s) and the company’s facilities for compliance with its authorities.

Other regulatory matters

Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities of product candidates following product approval, where applicable, or commercialization are also subject to regulation by numerous regulatory authorities in the United States in addition to the FDA, which may include the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, other divisions of the HHS, the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and state and local governments and governmental agencies.

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 will seek to obtain marketing approval. Our business operations and any current or future arrangements with third-party payors, healthcare providers and physicians may expose us to certain liabilities and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we develop, market, sell and distribute any drugs for which we obtain marketing approval in the future. In the United States, 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.

•

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, persons and entities from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, paying, receiving or providing any remuneration (including any kickback, bribe, or certain rebate), directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward, or in return for, either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, order or recommendation of, any good or service, for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under a federal healthcare program such as Medicare and Medicaid. A person or entity need not have actual knowledge of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. Violations are subject to civil and criminal fines and penalties for each violation, plus up to three times the remuneration involved, imprisonment, and exclusion from government healthcare programs. The Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers, on the one hand, and prescribers, purchasers and formulary managers, on the other. In addition, the government may assert that a claim that includes items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the civil False Claims Act.

•

The federal civil and criminal false claims and civil monetary penalties laws, including the federal False Claims Act, or FCA, imposes criminal and civil penalties, including through civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, against individuals or entities for knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, to the federal government, claims for payment that are false or fraudulent or making a false statement to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government. Manufacturers can be held liable under the FCA even when they do not submit claims directly to government payors if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims.

•

The federal civil monetary penalties laws impose civil fines for, among other things, the offering or transfer or remuneration to a Medicare or state healthcare program beneficiary, if the person knows or should know it is likely to influence the beneficiary’s selection of a particular provider, practitioner, or supplier of services reimbursable by Medicare or a state health care program, unless an exception applies.

•

HIPAA, which imposes criminal and civil liability for knowingly and willfully executing a scheme, or attempting to execute a scheme, to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private payors, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense, or falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false statements in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or

services. Similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity may be found guilty of violating HIPAA without actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it.

•

HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, or HITECH, and their respective implementing regulations, impose, among other things, specified requirements on covered entities and their respective business associates relating to the privacy and security of individually identifiable health information, including mandatory contractual terms and required implementation of technical safeguards of such information. HITECH also created new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates in some cases, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions.

•

Federal price reporting laws, which require manufacturers to calculate and report complex pricing metrics to government programs, where such reported prices may be used in the calculation of reimbursement and/or discounts on approved products

•

The Physician Payments Sunshine Act, enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively, the ACA, imposed new annual reporting requirements for certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics, and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, for certain payments and “transfers of value” provided to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors, as well as certain non-physician providers such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners) and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members.

•

Analogous state and foreign laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, state anti-kickback and false claims laws, may be broader in scope than the provisions described above and may apply regardless of payor. Some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and relevant federal government compliance guidance; require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers; restrict marketing practices or require disclosure of marketing expenditures and pricing information. State and foreign laws may govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances. These data privacy and security laws may differ from each other in significant ways and often are not pre-empted by HIPAA, which may complicate compliance efforts.

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 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, imprisonment, disgorgement, exclusion from government funded 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.

Insurance Coverage and Reimbursement

In the United States and markets in other countries, patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Thus, even if a product candidate is approved, sales of the product will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors, including government health programs in the United States such as Medicare and Medicaid, commercial health insurers and managed care organizations, provide coverage, and establish adequate reimbursement levels for, the product. In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement for new medicines are typically made by CMS. CMS decides whether and to what extent a new medicine will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare and private payors tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree. Coverage and reimbursement for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor. The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged, examining the medical necessity, reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products and services and imposing controls to manage costs. Third-party payors may limit coverage

to specific products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the approved products for a particular indication.

In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, a company may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product, which will require additional expenditure above and beyond the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable regulatory approvals. Some product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost effective. A decision by a third-party payor not to cover a product could reduce physician utilization once the product is approved and have a material adverse effect on sales, our operations and financial condition (when a product candidate is approved for marketing). Levels of coverage and reimbursement for a product can differ significantly from payor to payor.

The containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal, state and foreign governments (and other third-party payers), and the prices of products have been a focus in this effort. Governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit a company’s revenue generated from the sale of any approved products. Coverage policies and third-party payor reimbursement rates may change at any time.

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

Current and future healthcare reform legislation

In the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and likely will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system directed at broadening the availability of healthcare, improving the quality of healthcare, and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. For example, in March 2010, the United States Congress enacted the ACA, which, among other things, includes changes to the coverage and payment for products under government health care programs. The ACA includes provisions of importance to our potential product candidates that:

•

created an annual, nondeductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports specified branded prescription drugs and biologic products, apportioned among these entities according to their market share in certain government healthcare programs;

•

expanded eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs by, among other things, allowing states to offer Medicaid coverage to certain individuals with income at or below 133% of the federal poverty level, thereby potentially increasing a manufacturer’s Medicaid rebate liability;

•

expanded manufacturers’ rebate liability under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program by increasing the minimum rebate for both branded and generic drugs and revising the definition of “average manufacturer price,” or AMP, for calculating and reporting Medicaid drug rebates on outpatient prescription drug prices;

•

expanded the types of entities eligible for the 340B drug discount program;

•

established the Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program by requiring manufacturers to provide point-of-sale-discounts off the negotiated price of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period as a condition for the manufacturers’ outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D; and

•

created a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research.

Since its enactment, there have been numerous judicial, administrative, executive, and legislative challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. Prior to the Supreme Court's decision, President Biden issued an Executive Order to initiate a special enrollment period from February 15, 2021 through August 15, 2021 for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace. The Executive Order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. It is unclear how other healthcare reform measures of the Biden administrations or other efforts, if any, to challenge repeal or replace the ACA, will impact our business.

•

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. On August 2, 2011, the U.S. Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, included aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year. These reductions went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2030, with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Following the temporary suspension, a 1% payment reduction will occur beginning April 1, 2022 through June 30, 2022, and the 2% payment reduction will resume on July 1, 2022.

•

On January 2, 2013, the U.S. American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers.

•

On April 13, 2017, CMS published a final rule that gives states greater flexibility in setting benchmarks for insurers in the individual and small group marketplaces, which may have the effect of relaxing the essential health benefits required under the ACA for plans sold through such marketplaces.

•

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

•

On May 23, 2019, CMS published a final rule to allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option of using step therapy for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020.

•

On December 20, 2019, former President Trump signed into law the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 1865), which repealed the Cadillac tax, the health insurance provider tax, and the medical device excise tax. It is impossible to determine whether similar taxes could be instated in the future.

Additionally, there has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to drug pricing practices. Specifically, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several 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, and review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs. At the federal level, President Biden signed an Executive Order on July 9, 2021 affirming the administration’s policy to (i) support legislative reforms that would lower the prices of prescription drug and biologics, including by allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, by imposing inflation caps, and, by supporting the development and market entry of lower-cost generic drugs and biosimilars; and (ii) support the enactment of a public health insurance option. Additionally, on November 30, 2020, HHS published a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers. Pursuant to court order, the removal and addition of the aforementioned safe harbors were delayed and recent legislation imposed a moratorium on implementation of the rule until January 1, 2026. 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.

We expect that additional U.S. federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that the U.S. Federal Government will pay for healthcare drugs and services, which could result in reduced demand for our drug candidates or additional pricing pressures.

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

Outside the United States, ensuring coverage and adequate payment for a product also involves challenges. Pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to government control in many countries. Pricing negotiations with government authorities can extend well beyond the receipt of regulatory approval for a product and may require a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of a product to other available therapies. The conduct of such a clinical trial could be expensive and result in delays in commercialization.

In the European Union, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed upon. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies or so-called health technology assessments, in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. For example, the European Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. European Union member states may approve a specific price for a product or may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the product on the market. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for products, but monitor and control prescription volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. Recently, many countries in the European Union have increased the amount of discounts required on pharmaceuticals and these efforts could continue as countries attempt to manage healthcare expenditures, especially in light of the severe fiscal and debt crises experienced by many countries in the European Union. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription products, has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various European Union member states, and parallel trade, i.e., arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states, can further reduce prices. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any products, if approved in those countries.

Other United States 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 that 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.

Government regulation of drugs outside of the United States

To market any product outside of the United States, we would need to comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries regarding safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, manufacturing, commercial sales, promotion and distribution of our potential future products. For instance, in the United Kingdom and the European Economic Area, or the EEA (comprised of the 27 EU Member States plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway), medicinal products must be authorized for marketing by using either the centralized authorization procedure or national authorization procedures.

•

Centralized procedure — The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization by the European Commission that is valid throughout the EEA. Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004, the centralized procedure is compulsory for specific products, including for medicines produced by certain biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, advanced therapy products (gene therapy, somatic cell therapy and tissue engineered products) and products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases, which includes products for the treatment of cancer. For medicines that do not fall within one of the mandatory categories, an applicant still has the option of submitting an application for a centralized marketing authorization to the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, as long as the medicine concerned contains a new active substance not yet authorized in the EEA, is a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation, or if its authorization would be in the interest of public health in the EEA. If pursuing marketing authorization of a product candidate for a therapeutic indication under the centralized procedure, the EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or CHMP, is responsible for conducting an initial assessment of whether a product meets the required quality, safety and efficacy requirements, and whether a product has a positive benefit/risk ratio. Under the centralized procedure the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of a marketing authorization application, or MAA, by the EMA is 210 days, excluding clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the CHMP. Clock stops may extend the timeframe of evaluation of a MAA considerably beyond 210 days. Where the CHMP gives a positive opinion, it provides the opinion together with supporting documentation to the European Commission, who make the final decision to grant a marketing authorization, which is issued within 67 days of receipt of the EMA’s recommendation. Accelerated assessment might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is expected to be of major public health interest, particularly from the point of view of therapeutic innovation. The timeframe for the evaluation of a MAA under the accelerated assessment procedure is 150 days, excluding clock stops, but it is possible that the CHMP may revert to the standard time limit for the centralized procedure if it determines that the application is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment.

•

National authorization procedures — There are also two other possible routes to authorize products for therapeutic indications in several countries, which are available for products that fall outside the scope of the centralized procedure:

Using the decentralized procedure, an applicant may apply for simultaneous authorization in more than one EEA Member State for a medicinal product that has not yet been authorized in any EEA Member State and that does not fall within the mandatory scope of the centralized procedure.

In the mutual recognition procedure, a medicine is first authorized in one EEA Member State, in accordance with the national procedures of that country. Following this, additional marketing authorizations can be sought from other EEA Member States in a procedure whereby the countries concerned recognize the validity of the original, national marketing authorization.

In both cases, as with the centralized procedure, the competent authorities of the EEA Member States assess the risk-benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy before granting the marketing authorization.

In the EEA, new products for therapeutic indications that are authorized for marketing (i.e., innovator products) qualify for eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity upon marketing authorization. The data exclusivity period prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from referencing the preclinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the innovator product when applying for a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization in the EEA during a period of eight years from the date on which the innovator product was first authorized in the EEA. The additional two-year period of market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from commercializing its product in the EEA until ten years have elapsed from the initial authorization of the reference product in the European Union. The overall ten-year period can be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the

marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. Even if a compound is considered to be a new chemical entity so that the innovator gains the prescribed period of data exclusivity, another company may market another version of the product if such company obtained marketing authorization based on a MAA with a complete independent data package of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical tests and clinical trials

The criteria for designating an “orphan medicinal product” in the EEA are similar in principle to those in the United States. Under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) 141/2000, in the EEA a medicinal product may be designated as orphan if it meets the following criteria: (i) it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition; and (ii) either (a) such condition affects no more than five in 10,000 persons in the EEA when the application is made, or (b) it is unlikely that the product, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would generate sufficient return in the EEA to justify the investment needed for its development; and (iii) there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of such condition, or if such a method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition. Orphan medicinal products are eligible for financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and are, upon grant of a marketing authorization, entitled to ten years of market exclusivity for the approved therapeutic indication. During this ten-year orphan market exclusivity period, no marketing authorization application shall be accepted, and no marketing authorization shall be granted for a similar medicinal product for the same indication, unless certain conditions are met. An orphan product can also obtain an additional two years of market exclusivity in the European Union for pediatric studies. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

Similar to the United States, the various phases of non-clinical and clinical research in the European Union are subject to significant regulatory controls.

The Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC, the Directive 2005/28/EC on GCP and the related national implementing provisions of the individual EU Member States govern the system for the approval of clinical trials in the European Union. Under this system, an applicant must obtain prior approval from the national competent authority, or NCA, of the EU Member States in which the clinical trial is to be conducted. Furthermore, the applicant may only start a clinical trial at a specific study site after the competent ethics committee, or EC, has issued a favorable opinion. The clinical trial application must be accompanied by, among other documents, an investigational medicinal product dossier (the Common Technical Document) with supporting information prescribed by applicable directives. All suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions to the investigated drug that occur during the clinical trial have to be reported to the NCA and ECs of the Member State where they occurred.

Government regulation of data collection outside of the United States

In the event we conduct clinical trials in the European Union, we will be subject to additional privacy restrictions. The collection and use of personal health data in the European Economic Area, or EEA (being the European Union plus Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein), is governed by the General Data Protection Regulation, or the GDPR, which became effective on May 25, 2018. The GDPR applies to the processing of personal data by any company established in the EEA and to companies established outside the EEA to the extent they process personal data in connection with the offering of goods or services to data subjects in the EEA or the monitoring of the behavior of data subjects in the EEA. The GDPR enhances data protection obligations for data controllers of personal data, including stringent requirements relating to the consent of data subjects, expanded disclosures about how personal data is used, enhanced requirements for securing personal data, requirements to conduct privacy impact assessments for “high risk” processing, limitations on retention of personal data, mandatory data breach notification and “privacy by design” requirements, and creates direct obligations on service providers acting as processors. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data outside of the EEA to countries that do not ensure an adequate level of protection, like the United States. Failure to comply with the requirements of the GDPR and the related national data protection laws of the European Union Member States and Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, which may deviate slightly from the GDPR, may result in fines of up to 4% of a company’s global revenue for the preceding financial year, or €20,000,000, whichever is greater. Moreover, the GDPR grants data subjects the right to claim material and non-material damages resulting from infringement of the GDPR. Given the breadth and depth of changes in data protection obligations, maintaining compliance with the GDPR will require significant time, resources and expense, and we will be required to put in place controls and processes ensuring compliance with the new data protection rules. There has been limited enforcement of the GDPR to date, particularly in biopharmaceutical development, so we face uncertainty as to the exact interpretation of the new requirements on any future trials and we may be unsuccessful in implementing all measures required by data protection authorities or courts in interpretation of the new law. Further, the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union, means that it has in force its own legislation which is aligned with the GDPR, known as the Data

Protection Act 2018. The requirements are similar except that the United Kingdom is now regarded as a “third country” for the purposes of transfers of personal data from the EEA. Transfers continue to flow freely from the United Kingdom to the EEA; however, as part of the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union, the United Kingdom intends to obtain an adequacy decision from the European Commission to ensure personal data can continue to flow freely from the European Union to the United Kingdom.

Data protection authority activity differs across the European Union, with certain authorities applying their own agenda which shows there is uncertainty in the manner in which data protection authorities will seek to enforce compliance with GDPR. For example, it is not clear if the authorities will conduct random audits of companies doing business in the European Union, or if the authorities will wait for complaints to be filed by individuals who claim their rights have been violated. Enforcement uncertainty and the costs associated with ensuring GDPR compliance are onerous and may adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Should we utilize third-party distributors, compliance with such foreign governmental regulations would generally be the responsibility of such distributors, who may be independent contractors over whom we have limited control.

Competition

We face direct competition from pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies leveraging the principle of synthetic lethality as well as companies developing therapies for the same target pathway and the same indications. Well-established companies that are developing or may develop therapies based on synthetic lethality include AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck KGaA and Pfizer. Smaller and earlier-stage companies focused on synthetic lethality include Artios Pharma, Cyteir Therapeutics, KSQ Therapeutics, Ideaya Biosciences, MetaboMed, Mirati Therapeutics and Repare Therapeutics.

Our PRMT5 inhibitor program, which includes TNG908 as well as a next generation compound that is in development, will face direct competition from companies that have clinical-stage, MTA-cooperative PRMT5 inhibitors that are selective for MTAP-deleted cancers. We are aware that Mirati Therapeutics and Amgen have a clinical MTA-cooperative PRMT5 inhibitor program, using the same mechanism of action as TNG908. The INDs submitted by Tango, Mirati and Amgen have all received clearance by the FDA to commence clinical trials for their respective inhibitors. Currently, there are no MTA-cooperative PRMT5 inhibitors that are authorized for marketing by any regulatory authority.

Indirect competition may come from non-MTAP deletion selective PRMT5 programs or MAT2A inhibitor programs that are uniquely different than the TNG908 mechanism of action. Two companies have non-MTAP selective PRMT5 inhibitors in clinical development, including Prelude Therapeutics (PRT543 and PRT811) and Johnson & Johnson (JNJ 64619178). GSK and Pfizer have recently discontinued the clinical development of their non-MTAP selective PRMT5 inhibitors. MAT2A is an enzyme upstream of PRMT5 essential for the metabolism of the PRMT5 co-factor SAM that acts on the same pathway as TNG908. Agios Pharmaceuticals (AG-270) and Ideaya Biosciences (IDE397) are the two clinical programs we are aware of competing in the MAT2A space. Agios announced the divestment of their oncology portfolio to Servier Pharmaceuticals, including the MAT2A program in December 2020.

Competition for our preclinical USP1 inhibitor program comes from KSQ Therapeutics, which has a USP1 program in preclinical development.

We face competition more broadly across the oncology market for safe, efficacious, and reimbursable cancer treatments. The most common methods of treating patients with cancer are surgery, radiation, and drug therapy, including chemotherapy, hormone therapy, biologic therapy (such as monoclonal and bispecific antibodies), immunotherapy, cell-based therapy and targeted therapy, or a combination of any such methods. There are a variety of available drug therapies marketed for cancer. In many cases, these drugs are administered in combination to enhance efficacy. While our product candidates, if any are approved, may compete with these existing drugs and other therapies, to the extent they are ultimately used in combination with or as an adjunct to these therapies, our product candidates may not be competitive with them. Some of these drugs are branded and subject to patent protection, and others are available on a generic basis. Insurers and other third-party payors may also encourage the use of generic products or specific branded products. As a result, obtaining market acceptance of, and gaining significant share of the market for, any of our product candidates that we successfully introduce to the market may pose challenges. In addition, many companies are developing new oncology therapeutics, and we cannot predict what the standard of care will be as our product candidates progress through clinical development.

Many of our competitors, either alone or with their collaborators, have significantly greater resources, expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical and clinical testing, obtaining regulatory approvals and reimbursement, and

marketing approved products than we do. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, sales, marketing and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. Additionally, mergers and acquisitions may result in even more resources being concentrated in our competitors.

Employees and Human Capital Resources

Attracting and retaining qualified and experienced employees in research and development, clinical, manufacturing, quality and other positions is crucial to our ability to compete effectively. Competition for these employees is intense in the pharmaceutical industry in which we operate. Our ability to recruit and retain such employees depends on a number of factors, including the growth of our organization, the culture and work environment we have created, our organizational values and goals and our corporate philosophy; talent development and career opportunities; and compensation and benefits.

As of December 31, 2021, we had 91 full-time employees, of which 42 have M.D. or Ph.D. degrees. Within our workforce, 67 employees are engaged in research and development and 24 are engaged in business development, finance, legal, and general management and administration. None of our employees are represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

Talent Acquisition and Employee Development:

Our principal talent acquisition goal is to attract, retain, and develop the highest quality talent. As we build our organization beyond drug discovery and drug development, our goals have been extended to include establishing an employee base that will allow us to efficiently move our pipeline products through clinical trials, regulatory approvals and into the market where we can help patients and their families and, simultaneously, to have a workforce that provides diverse backgrounds and ideas, are trained to operate and act at the highest standards of ethics and integrity, and are dedicated to achieve the highest level of innovation and to advance oncology treatments through the use of synthetic lethality. To support our talent acquisition, our human resources programs are designed to develop talent to prepare them for leadership positions in the future; reward employees through competitive benefits programs, including competitive pay, incentive compensation, and an equity program that aligns the incentives of our employees with the interests of our shareholders; enhance our culture through efforts aimed at making the workplace more engaging and inclusive; and retain and develop talent that embody our core values.

Diversity:

While Tango is early in its corporate development, our employees represent a broad set of backgrounds, perspectives and experiences. We attribute our early growth and success to the diversity that our employees bring with them to their professional roles. We are committed to the goals of diversity, equity and inclusion, which is the foundation upon which we are building a leading synthetic lethality business that is pushing the advances in oncology care, all with the objective of benefiting patients. We are building a work environment where employees can express themselves and have a voice in how we operate. Among other things, members of our management meet in small group sessions with all employees throughout the year and the feedback in these meetings is used to drive our professional development programs, our compensation structure, our organizational development and our culture. These and similar programs are important to develop a sense of belonging for all employees.

Employee Engagement:

We survey our employees on an annual basis to assess overall engagement of our workforce, and compare our engagement results against a set of benchmark companies. These companies are in the biotech sector and of similar size (number of employees). We use these results, both our internal results and the comparative results against the benchmark companies, to assess our employee engagement performance during the preceding year and to determine areas of focus going forward.

In our most recent survey, conducted in late-2021, the results indicated improvements in almost all areas reviewed in the survey and the results were generally higher than our benchmark dataset, which supports our view that we have positive employee engagement. Every year, we take these results, and a task force is formed to enable actions that will further improve our engagement.

COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to present a substantial public health and economic challenge globally. While the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic to date on our business has not been material, it is continuously evolving and its future effects are difficult to predict with meaningful precision as the impact will depend on many factors beyond our control and knowledge at this point in time. As the pandemic continues and new variants of the COVID-19 virus presents itself, we are monitoring its impact on our business. For example, we received FDA clearance of our IND application for TNG908 in the first quarter of 2022 and expect to commence clinical trials in the second quarter of 2022. We do not expect, at this time, that our clinical trial enrollment and progress will be materially delayed beyond our anticipated timeframe, but any adverse developments with respect to COVID-19 may cause unexpected delays in these trials, including as a result of our CRO or clinical trial sites not having sufficient resources and employees to conduct the trials in the anticipated timeframe.

TNGX US Equity

TNGX · 10-K · period ended 2021-12-31

Item 1. Business.

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

TNGX US Equity☆

TNGX · 10-K · period ended 2021-12-31

Item 1. Business.

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

TNGX US Equity