CABA Cabaletta Bio Inc

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022

OR

Commission File Number 001-39103

CABALETTA BIO, INC.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its Charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (267) 759-3100

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As of June 30, 2022 (the last business day of the registrant's most recently completed second fiscal quarter), the aggregate market value of the registrant's common stock held by non-affiliates was approximately $29 million based on the last reported sale price of the registrant's common stock on the Nasdaq Global Select Market on June 30, 2022.

The number of shares of registrant’s Common Stock outstanding as of March 10, 2023 was 31,340,989.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Table of Contents

i

Summary of the Material and Other Risks Associated with Our Business

1

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K, including the sections entitled “Risk Factors” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” contains express or implied forward-looking statements that are based on our management’s belief and assumptions and on information currently available to our management. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in these forward-looking statements are reasonable, these statements relate to future events or our future operational or financial performance, and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K include, but are not limited to, statements about:

2

These factors should not be construed as exhaustive and should be read in conjunction with the other cautionary statements that are included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are made as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and we undertake no obligations to publicly update or review any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future developments or otherwise.

3

PART I

Item 1. Business.

Overview

We are a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on the discovery and development of engineered T cell therapies that have the potential to provide a deep and durable, perhaps curative, treatment for patients with autoimmune diseases. The Cabaletta Approach to B cell Ablation, or our CABA™ platform, encompasses two strategies – chimeric antigen receptor T cells for autoimmunity, or CARTA, and our proprietary chimeric autoantibody receptor T cells, or CAART. We believe these two strategies, which comprise our CABA™ platform, have the potential to be applied across a broad range of autoimmune diseases.

The initiation or maintenance of many autoimmune diseases involves B lymphocytes, also called B cells, which create a type of protein called an antibody, which bind to pathogens, such as bacteria or viruses, or to foreign substances, such as toxins, to neutralize them. Additional B cell effects include releasing cytokines, presenting antigens to T cells, and co-stimulating other immune cells to eliminate the foreign pathogens or substances. When these B cell functions become misdirected to the healthy tissues or cells in the body, they can contribute to the initiation or maintenance of an autoimmune disease. Current treatment options for these autoimmune diseases are generally limited to corticosteroids and generalized immunosuppressants that offer only temporary disease suppression, may require chronic dosing, in-hospital administration, and are associated with potentially severe side effects. Optimal therapy would either reset the immune system or selectively eliminate only the disease-causing B cells, while sparing the normal protective B cells.

Our CABA™ platform encompasses two strategies that seek to address both of these potentially curative approaches for patients with autoimmune diseases. The CARTA strategy is designed to achieve transient depletion of all B cells following a single treatment by using T cells engineered to express an antibody fragment that recognizes a B cell receptor expressed on the surface of all B cells, which is designed to allow for the complete elimination of B cells that contribute to disease with subsequent repopulation by healthy naïve B cells, offering the potential for durable and complete clinical responses through an immune system reset without the need for chronic immunosuppression in patients with autoimmune diseases. The CAART strategy is designed to selectively engage and eliminate only the pathogenic B cells responsible for driving disease by using T cells engineered to express disease specific targeting domains which are designed to mimic the antigen that is the subject of attack in an autoimmune disease. Our CAARs differ from chimeric antigen receptors, or CARs, in the use of the autoantigen rather than an antibody fragment, which enables the CAAR T cells to serve as a “decoy” for specific autoreactive B cell receptors expressed on the surface of B cells, causing the pathogenic B cells to engage with the CAAR T cells, mistaking them for a target antigen, and resulting in their elimination. We believe our CABA™ platform has potential applicability across dozens of autoimmune diseases that we have identified, evaluated and prioritized.

Academic clinical data published in Nature Medicine in September 2022 demonstrated that a CD19-CAR T cell therapy with a 4-1BB co-stimulatory domain following standard doses of lymphodepletion with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide induced clinical remission in 5 out of 5 patients with moderate to severe, refractory systemic lupus erythematosus, SLE, with up to 17 months of follow up in the first treated patient (Mackensen, Andreas, et al. "Anti-CD19 CAR T cell therapy for refractory systemic lupus erythematosus." Nature Medicine (2022): 1-9). Grade 1 cytokine release syndrome, or CRS, was observed in 3 out of 5 patients, and there was no observation of neurotoxicity of any grade. New naïve B cells repopulated within 2-5 months of CAR T infusion in all patients, with no evidence of recurrence of disease or autoantibodies following repopulation. In summary, the data suggest the potential to reset the immune system in these patients. Extending the observation of the potential of 4-1BB containing CD19-CAR T beyond SLE, in February 2023, a clinical case report was published in Lancet Rheumatology which reported that the same 4-1BB containing CD19-CAR T cell therapy was administered at the same dose following a similar preconditioning regimen with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide to a patient with anti-synthetase syndrome, which is a form of myositis (Müller, Fabian, et al. “CD19-targeted CAR T cells in refractory antisynthetase syndrome.” The Lancet (2023)). This patient experienced rapid, durable and profound decreases in muscle inflammation, improvement in muscle function and reduction of autoantibody titers as early as three months after therapy and lasting for at least six months following therapy with reconstitution of the B cell population occurring within the follow-up period. Grade 1 CRS and no immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity, or ICANS, were reported.

CABA-201 was designed for use in autoimmune patients to closely replicate the design of the academic product that has produced the clinical data reported above. The fully human CD19 binder in CABA-201, which was exclusively licensed from Nanjing IASO Biotherapeutics Co., Ltd., or IASO, was designed through screening of 100 billion antibody fragments to be a fully human equivalent of the murine FMC63 CD19 binder that was used in the Nature Medicine and Lancet Rheumatology papers referenced above. T cells expressing a 4-1BB-containing CAR with our fully human binder have been demonstrated to possess similar biologic activity in vitro and in vivo when compared to T cells expressing a 4-1BB-containing CAR utilizing the murine FMC63 CD19 binder employed in the academic studies (Dai, Zhenyu, et al. “Development and functional characterization of novel

4

fully human anti‐CD19 chimeric antigen receptors for T‐cell therapy.” Journal of Cellular Physiology 236.8 (2021): 5832-5847). The fully human binder has been clinically evaluated in a dual-CD19xCD22 CAR T candidate under development for B cell leukemia and lymphoma in an investigator-initiated trial in China, and IASO has reported a tolerability profile that we believe is favorable for development in autoimmune diseases. We believe CABA-201 may have the potential to transform treatment of autoimmune diseases with high unmet need through a potential immune system reset given the similarity of the overall design to the construct used in the Nature Medicine and Lancet Rheumatology studies specifically the similarities in the targeting domain as well as the use of the same 4-1BB costimulatory domain. Subject to the FDA review, we expect a potential IND clearance of CABA-201 in the first half of 2023, and initial clinical data by the first half of 2024.

In addition to a product candidate that we believe is specifically designed for use in autoimmune patients, we have established an exclusive translational research partnership with Dr. Georg Schett, who is a pioneer and global leader in the application of CD19-targeting cell therapies in autoimmunity and the senior author on the Nature Medicine and Lancet Rheumatology papers cited above. The collaboration is designed to allow Dr. Schett to share his patient samples with us in order for us to generate translational data on his patients, which will be combined with real time clinical data to generate insights and a deeper understanding of the immunologic mechanisms of response from ongoing and continued clinical studies in multiple autoimmune diseases. With the addition of CABA-201 to our cell therapy pipeline as the lead product in our CARTA strategy, informed by confidential clinical and translational insights from this scientific collaboration, we believe we can potentially address a broad range of autoimmune diseases in which B cells have a role initiating or maintaining disease.

Within the CAART strategy, our initial therapeutic focus is on mucosal pemphigus vulgaris, or mPV, a chronic, autoimmune blistering skin disease that affects the mucous membranes. mPV is caused by autoantibodies against the cell adhesion protein desmoglein 3, or DSG3. Despite a current standard of care that includes corticosteroids and adjunctive immunosuppressive agents, pemphigus vulgaris, or PV, remains associated with frequent recurrences as well as substantial morbidity and mortality. Our lead product candidate, DSG3-CAART, is being evaluated for the treatment of mPV, a subtype of PV that affects the epithelium of the mucous membranes. mPV is caused by autoantibodies against DSG3. In January 2020, the United States Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, granted orphan drug designation to DSG3-CAART for the treatment of PV. In May 2020, DSG3-CAART received fast track designation from the FDA for improving healing of mucosal blisters in patients with mPV. DSG3-CAART is currently being evaluated in the Phase 1 DesCAARTesTM trial, which is currently enrolling patients. As recently presented at the 31st European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) Congress in September 2022 and at the 29th European Society of Gene and Cell Therapy (ESGCT) Congress in October 2022, when administered as a monotherapy without combination therapy, we observed no dose-limiting toxicities through cohort A5, at up to a 7.5 billion DSG3-CAART cell dose. Though no clear trends in antibody levels or disease activity reduction were observed through cohort A5, one subject in cohort A4 had no disease activity by three months post-infusion while reducing steroid usage during that period, an antibody titer that dropped more than 20% by three months post-infusion, and was the only patient in the first four cohorts that had detectable DSG3-CAART persistence at the three month time point following initial DSG3-CAART infusion. Based on the data observed from these cohorts, we announced that the combination sub-study, incorporating a pre-treatment combination regimen with IVIG and cyclophosphamide, would be prioritized to follow cohort A5. We anticipate reporting one month safety and persistence data from the combination sub-study in the first half of 2023, and six month clinical data from the combination sub-study by the first half of 2024.

Our second clinical product candidate, MuSK-CAART, is designed to treat a subset of patients with myasthenia gravis, or MG. MG is an autoimmune disease induced by autoantibodies targeting the neuromuscular junction, or NMJ, which can lead to life-threatening muscle weakness. Our product candidate targets autoreactive B cells that differentiate into antibody secreting cells that produce autoantibodies against a transmembrane protein, muscle-specific kinase, or MuSK, and is being developed for the treatment of MuSK MG. In the fourth quarter of 2021, we submitted an Investigational New Drug, or IND, application for the first-in-human studies of MuSK-CAART to the FDA, which became effective in January 2022. In February 2022, MuSK-CAART received fast track designation from the FDA for improving activities of daily living and muscle strength in patients with MuSK antibody-positive myasthenia gravis. In June 2022, we received a no objection letter from Health Canada, allowing us to initiate clinical trial activities in Canada. In October 2022, MuSK-CAART received orphan drug designation for the treatment of MuSK MG. We initiated the Phase 1 MusCAARTes™ trial in November 2022. We anticipate reporting six month clinical data from the combination cohort by the first half of 2024.

Our CAART pipeline also includes product candidates currently in discovery-stage or preclinical development for the treatment of mucocutaneous PV, or mcPV and PLA2R-associated membranous nephropathy, or PLA2R MN, in addition to two undisclosed targets. DSG3/1-CAART, is being developed for mcPV, which affects both mucosal and skin surfaces and is caused by autoantibodies against DSG3 and desmoglein 1, or DSG1. PLA2R-CAART is being developed to treat patients with PLA2R-assoicated membranous nephropathy, an autoimmune disease that is typically caused by production of autoantibodies directed to phospholipase A2 receptor (PLA2R), a single-pass transmembrane protein expressed in the glomerulus of the kidney.

5

Our manufacturing strategy is comprised of three stages, designed to initially leverage the extensive early-stage manufacturing expertise of our academic partners while migrating to contract manufacturing organization, or CMO, partnerships and ultimately aiming to achieve full manufacturing independence through establishment of our own manufacturing facilities and/or through a strategic partnership. Stage 1 leverages the expertise in cell and vector manufacturing of our partners at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, or CHOP, and the University of Pennsylvania, or Penn. This stage included early development work, IND support and cell and vector product manufacturing for CABA-201 and DSG3-CAART. We believe these partnerships and use of these established facilities have allowed us to move efficiently and reliably into clinical trials, but will not be sufficient to support a commercial license. Stage 2, which is ongoing, is designed to engage partners who are positioned for manufacturing of vectors and cell processing at commercial grade and scale. In January 2021, we initiated a collaboration with WuXi Advanced Therapies, Inc. or WuXi, to serve as our cell processing manufacturing partner, and have completed enabling engineering runs in preparation for our MusCAARTesTM trial. In December 2021, we entered into a license and supply agreement with Oxford Biomedica (UK) Limited, or Oxford Biomedica, to supply lentiviral vector for the clinical and commercial development of our DSG3-CAART candidate. Contingent on sufficient clinical evidence from our product candidates, we plan to advance the third stage of our manufacturing strategy which will include leasing, building, qualifying and operating our own manufacturing facility and/or establishing a strategic partnership to rapidly and reliably scale manufacturing leveraging the partner’s manufacturing expertise. We believe this additional stage will enable full control of product development and commercial supply for products arising from our CABA™ platform, enabling us to achieve continuous improvement of our product candidates. Our Chief Executive Officer and our President, Science and Technology, have both, in prior roles, built and led organizations that have constructed and commissioned cell therapy facilities which we believe will enable us to build our own manufacturing organizations and facilities, if desirable.

We plan to build upon our first mover advantage in the field of engineered T cell therapy for autoimmune diseases and further advance the discovery, development, and commercialization of our product candidate portfolio. Our preclinical, regulatory and clinical development experience have enabled the successful clearance of two cell therapy INDs for first-in-human studies in patients with autoimmune diseases within the routine review period. We have a track record of successful manufacturing and timely clinical trial execution, with robust capabilities in clinical operations and manufacturing in order to manage the complex logistics and to implement clinical trials of engineered T cell therapy in autoimmune diseases involving oncologists and medical specialists, such as dermatologists and neurologists, across a dozen sites in the United States, requiring coordination of multiple stakeholders across therapeutic areas. We believe this experience has the potential to be a significant operating advantage. Our scientific founders are leading experts in autoimmune diseases and CAR T technology, and we are led by an experienced team with demonstrated success in discovering, developing, manufacturing and evaluating novel cell therapy products in clinical trials. We have assembled a Scientific Advisory Board with relevant experience in discovery, clinical and regulatory science for autoimmunity and cell and gene therapy. In addition, we have partnered our discovery and initial development efforts with Penn, a pioneer in cell and gene therapy with a proven track record of expertise in the translational research, clinical development, and manufacturing of cell therapy products, in order to advance multiple product candidates in clinical trials along with continued progress with our preclinical product candidates.

Our History and Team

Our scientific co-founders, Aimee Payne, M.D., Ph.D., and Michael Milone, M.D., Ph.D., began partnering at Penn in 2013 to combine Dr. Payne’s expertise in B cell-mediated autoimmune diseases with Dr. Milone’s deep and experienced insights into the design and implementation of CAR T products. Dr. Payne is a worldwide leader in characterizing B cell-mediated autoantibody repertoires in PV and other autoimmune diseases. Dr. Milone is a renowned scientist in CAR T therapy and was a co-inventor of and a key driver in the preclinical discovery and development efforts that yielded Kymriah®, the first FDA-approved CAR T therapy for the treatment of B cell cancers. Dr. Payne’s laboratory surmised that by incorporating an antigen instead of an antibody fragment as the extracellular domain of the CAAR, specific pathogenic B cells could be targeted. This resulted in a collaboration between the two investigators to apply the scientific foundation of CAR T technology as it has been advanced by Drs. Payne and Milone in order to address B cell-mediated autoimmune diseases.

Their first scientific publication, “Reengineering chimeric antigen receptor T cells for targeted therapy of autoimmune disease” (Science, July 2016), attracted the attention of a colleague, Steven Nichtberger, M.D., who is an adjunct professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, teaching a class on biotech company formation, financing and leadership in the Vagelos Life Sciences & Management Program. Additionally, Dr. Nichtberger has experience creating and building companies, including a novel cellular therapy company, which required transferring the technology from an academic institution, establishing a research and development organization, hiring of manufacturing and quality teams, creating novel manufacturing processes, reaching agreement with the FDA on novel clinical development pathways and constructing a commercial-scale Good Manufacturing Practices, or GMP, facility that manufactured autologous cell therapy products for clinical trials. In 2017, based on over a year of

6

interaction and discussions regarding the optimal strategy to advance the scientific opportunity into a commercially developed product portfolio that could offer potentially curative treatment options to patients, Drs. Payne, Milone and Nichtberger decided to launch Cabaletta Bio.

The longstanding and highly productive partnership between our co-founders has been complemented by additional management experience that brings a successful history of translating academic cellular therapy research from Penn and elsewhere into commercially sponsored clinical trials and the establishment of a GMP manufacturing facility and organization.

Gwendolyn Binder, Ph.D., our President, Science and Technology, was an early member of the Translational Research Program Operations team at Penn for over five years and participated in the submission and acceptance of multiple INDs for novel engineered T cell therapy products. As part of the cell therapy organization at Penn, Dr. Binder partnered with Dr. Milone and others to drive the IND-enabling translational studies that facilitated the initial CAR T clinical trial in B cell cancers at Penn. Dr. Binder also built and led a clinical stage biotechnology company’s manufacturing operations and quality teams, including creation of a fully functioning commercial grade GMP facility. Dr. Binder also built the translational research program and ultimately led the company’s research organization.

Our Chief Medical Officer, David Chang, M.D. was the late-stage clinical development leader of the only two drugs approved for SLE in the United States in over 60 years, belimumab, or Benlysta, and anifrolumab, or Sapnelo, through his roles at GlaxoSmithKline plc and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP prior to joining the team at Cabaletta Bio. Dr. Chang completed his fellowship in Rheumatology and was a faculty member in the Division of Rheumatology at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania prior to his transition to the biopharmaceutical industry.

Over the past five years, Cabaletta has implemented two clinical-stage CAART cell therapy programs in autoimmunity, which have required collaborations between specialists in current therapeutic areas of interest – dermatologists and neurologists – and oncologists who are responsible for administering the cell therapy at each site. Given our track record of timely clinical trial implementation with CAART cell therapy in autoimmune diseases over the past five years at a dozen sites across the United States, we believe that our team’s successful management of the complicated planning and logistics involved with implementation of these clinical trials has the potential to be an operating advantage. The safety data from the Phase 1 DesCAARTes™ trial, evaluating DSG3-CAART, the lead CAART candidate, has been encouraging in patients at doses up to 7.5 billion cells. Based on emerging translational data, combination strategies to increase DSG3-CAART activity are being evaluated. The next CAART candidate, MuSK-CAART for patients with MuSK-associated myasthenia gravis, is being evaluated in the recently initiated Phase 1 MusCAARTesTM trial and has benefitted from our deep understanding of cell therapy in autoimmunity through application of our learnings to the trial design, including a higher starting cell dose delivered as a single infusion, smaller patient cohorts and earlier implementation of combination strategies. Our robust clinical execution is demonstrated through our positive regulatory interactions since 2018, with two IND applications cleared within the routine 30-day period, implementation of multiple clinical trial protocol modifications, two Fast Track Designations and two Orphan Drug Designations granted to pipeline candidates, as well as our successful manufacturing of our novel cell therapy product candidates with academic and industry partners.

As we have established our position in the field of autoimmunity, we continue to evaluate novel approaches that have the potential to cure autoimmune diseases. We were encouraged to see the results generated in an academic clinical study published in Nature Medicine in September 2022, showing the potential for CD19-CAR T to transform the course of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In five patients with SLE, one-time treatment with a 4-1BB-containing CD19-CAR T cell therapy induced deep and durable clinical responses in all five patients within three months after treatment, with favorable tolerability. Healthy B cells repopulated in all patients within five months of treatment, and responses remained durable off SLE-associated medications for up to 17 months of follow-up. These findings demonstrate the potential for CD19-CAR T to “reset the immune system,” eliminating the cause of autoimmune disease with restoration of the healthy immune system.

Building on these results, we announced in October 2022 the development of CABA-201, a 4-1BB-containing CD19-CAR T investigational therapy, for the treatment of severe autoimmune diseases. The product has been designed to be highly similar to the construct used by Dr. Schett in the Nature Medicine paper. We are employing a fully human CD19 binder that has high similarity, including similar binding activity, to the construct employed in the academic study. Our exclusive translational research partnership with Dr. Schett, involves our robust translational research laboratory combined with confidential sharing of his unpublished clinical data to generate early and actionable insights from his trials that are informing our clinical development strategy and plans.

7

Accelerated by our team’s deep expertise in cell therapy, robust clinical experience in autoimmunity, and demonstrated track record of strong execution, we are uniquely positioned to advance CD19-targeting strategies to further our mission to develop therapies that deliver deep, durable and potentially curative responses for patients with autoimmune diseases.

Our Research and Manufacturing Collaboration with Penn

Our CABA™ platform has already produced multiple product candidates through our sponsored research agreements, or SRAs, with Penn for the laboratories of our scientific co-founders, Drs. Payne and Milone. Our continuing relationship with our scientific co-founders provides important advice and insights to us. Our contractual relationship with Penn through ongoing licensing and research arrangements also provides important services around manufacturing supply.

In May 2020 and October 2021, we amended and restated our worldwide license agreement with Penn to develop our CAAR T technology to treat B cell-mediated autoimmune and alloimmune diseases. This license agreement provides us with access to multiple patent families covering CAAR T therapy as applied to the field of B cell-mediated autoimmune and alloimmune diseases and to the robust intellectual property portfolio created by Penn under these SRAs in this field. See “—Our Material Agreements—Amended and Restated License Agreement with Penn.”

Our ongoing collaboration with Penn is also based on a Master Translational Research Services Agreement, or the Services Agreement, that we entered into in October 2018, along with multiple additional agreements under the Services Agreement to engage and partner in individual Penn entities, including cell product manufacturing, correlative research, vector manufacturing, clinical trial operations and protocol development. In addition to the Services Agreement, we have agreements in place with various functional areas and centers that provide additional resources to Penn as well as contractual commitments from Penn with the goal of providing the capacity to manufacture certain of our product candidates. Penn has also agreed to manufacture vector product for use in our clinical trials. Penn’s obligations are subject to certain limitations and termination rights. See “—Our Material Agreements—Master Translational Research Services Agreement with Penn”.

We believe Penn is uniquely suited to be our partner in our efforts to develop product candidates leveraging our CAR T and CAAR T technology based on a decade of experience, including manufacturing and clinical support for approximately a dozen active cell therapy clinical trials. The original manufacturing process for the first FDA-approved CAR T therapy was developed at Penn before being transferred to Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation during late-stage clinical trials. We are leveraging Penn’s experience, validated standard operating procedures, manufacturing facilities and staffing to accelerate development efforts for our lead product candidate.

Our Strategy

Our goal is to build upon our expertise in engineered T cell therapies for autoimmune diseases enhanced by our exclusive translational research partnership with Dr. Georg Schett to accelerate the discovery, development and commercialization of our product candidates. We believe achieving this goal could result in potentially curative therapies for patients with unmet medical needs who suffer from a broad range of autoimmune diseases with B cell involvement. To achieve this goal, key elements of our strategy include:

8

9

B Cells in Autoimmune Diseases: Overview and Current Treatment Paradigm

The body’s immune system, which is designed to protect the body from infection and cancer, includes B cells and T cells. In addition to producing antibodies against antigens that the body perceives as foreign, B cells are responsible for producing inflammatory cytokines, co-stimulating other immune cells, and presenting antigen to T cells to enable cell-mediated immunity. Autoimmune disease occurs when the immune response becomes mistakenly targeted to healthy tissues and cells, and B cells can contribute to the incitement and/or maintenance of these processes through their varied immune mechanisms. In the case of B cell-mediated autoimmune diseases, B cells are responsible for driving disease through production of autoantibodies, or antibodies against the ‘self,’ that lead to disease. While these autoantibodies are the major effectors of B cell-mediated autoimmune diseases, the underlying root cause of disease is the defective B cells that mistakenly differentiate into autoantibody-secreting cells. These pathogenic B cells express autoantibodies on their surface with the same antigen specificity as the circulating pathogenic autoantibodies, which can be used to distinguish them from the healthy B cell population, as shown in the figure below.

Thomas G. Forsthuber, et al. “B cell-based therapies in CNS autoimmunity: differentiating CD19 and CD20 as therapeutic targets.” Therapeutic Advances in Neurological Disorders (2018): Vol 11: 1-13

Antibodies are B cell receptors that drive B cell maturation. CD19 serves as a B cell marker from the pro B cell phase until differentiation to plasma cells, while CD20 is a surface marker expressed in a narrower range of the B cell maturation process. CABA-201 is directed to the CD19 B cell marker. CAAR T product candidates are designed to eliminate antigen specific B cells in each targeted disease, preventing their further development to antibody secreting plasma cells. IgM: immunoglobulin M; IgD: immunoglobulin D; IgA: immunoglobulin A; sIg: surface immunoglobulin, representing the autoantibody on the B cell surface.

Current treatment options for autoimmune diseases involve generalized immune suppression, achieved through corticosteroids, immunosuppressive medications and biologics. Most commonly, corticosteroids are used on both a chronic and acute basis to control disease and act via a variety of mechanisms to control or downregulate multiple inflammatory pathways. In many cases, systemic immunosuppressive medications often used in chemotherapy such as mycophenolate, azathioprine and methotrexate, are added in an effort to minimize symptoms and manage the expected recurrences in patients. Biologic therapies have emerged as a new class of therapies and have a variety of targets including cytokines, B cells, and co-stimulation molecules. Currently existing treatment options target parts of the immune system in addition to disease-causing B cells, and in general require chronic administration to reduce recurrence rates. We believe the ideal therapy in autoimmune diseases would completely and specifically eliminate the pathogenic B cells while sparing the immune cells that protect against infection, without requiring chronic administration.

10

Our Approach

Our CABA™ platform encompasses two strategies. The CARTA (chimeric antigen receptor T cells for autoimmunity) strategy is designed to achieve transient depletion of all B cells following a single infusion, allowing for the elimination disease-causing B cells and subsequent repopulation by healthy B cells, providing potentially meaningful clinical responses to patients without long-term immunosuppression. The CAART (chimeric autoantibody T cells) strategy is designed to engineer T cells to express CAARs that selectively engage and eliminate pathogenic B cells. Our CAARs build upon the scientific foundation of CARs, differing primarily in the use of the antigen rather than an antibody fragment, which enables the CAAR T cells to serve as a “decoy” for specific autoreactive B cell receptors expressed on the surface of B cells. This allows these pathogenic B cells to engage with the CAAR T cells instead of benign antigens, resulting in their elimination. We believe our CABA™ platform has potential applicability across dozens of autoimmune diseases.

Our CARTA Strategy

Engineered T cell therapy is a type of immunotherapy in which human T cells are genetically modified to express specific receptors, enabling the T cells to recognize and eliminate pathogenic cells. A key application of engineered cell therapy involves the use of CARs, which are engineered molecules that enable T cells to identify specific antigens present on the surface of diseased cells. When expressed on the patient’s T cells, the CAR directs the T cells to kill cells that express a particular antigen. CAR T technology has been used to develop treatments for B cell cancers, which have led to regulatory approvals for certain types of leukemias and lymphomas. In these B cell cancers, CAR T therapy has resulted in complete remission of disease in many patients, even in patients with severe, refractory cancer.

Academic clinical data published in Nature Medicine in September 2022 demonstrated that a CD19-CAR T cell therapy with a 4-1BB co-stimulatory domain following lymphodepletion with standard doses of fludarabine and cyclophosphamide induced clinical remission in 5 out of 5 patients with moderate to severe, refractory SLE, with up to 17 months of follow up in the first treated patient. Grade 1 CRS was observed in 3 out of 5 patients, and there was no observation of neurotoxicity of any grade. New naïve B cells repopulated within 2-5 months of CAR T infusion in all patients, with no evidence of recurrence of disease or autoantibodies following repopulation. In summary, the data suggest the potential for a reset of the immune system in these patients.

Our licensed fully human CD19 binder has been designed to be highly similar to the construct used in the Nature Medicine paper. The fully human binder has been clinically evaluated in a dual-CD19xCD22 CAR T candidate under development for B cell leukemia and lymphoma in an investigator-initiated trial in China, where IASO has reported a tolerability profile that we believe is favorable for development in autoimmune diseases. The activity of T cells expressing a 4-1BB-containing CAR with our binder was evaluated against T cells expressing a 4-1BB-containing CAR utilizing the CD19 binder employed in the Nature Medicine study cited above, FMC63-CART, as a benchmark. Compared to FMC63-CART, CABA-201 exhibited comparable biologic activity in vitro and in vivo.(Dai, Zhenyu, et al). Given its similarity to the CD19-CAR T construct employed in the trial conducted by Dr.

11

Georg Schett and his colleagues, including incorporation of a 4-1BB co-stimulatory domain, we believe the data inform the dosing of CABA-201, which may have the potential to transform treatment of autoimmune diseases with high unmet need.

Our CAART Strategy

Our CAART strategy builds upon the scientific foundation of CARs to enable targeted B cell elimination in an autoimmune setting, which may lead to complete and durable remission of disease while sparing all other B cell populations that can provide beneficial immunity from infection. The co-stimulatory domain and the signaling domain of both a CAR T cell and CAAR T cell carry out the same activation and cytotoxic functions once the engineered cell therapy engages its relevant target expressed on a B cell. CAAR T cells differ from CAR T cells primarily in their extracellular targeting domain. Rather than containing an antibody fragment, the CAAR domain incorporates the relevant components of the autoantigen that is subject to attack in a certain autoimmune disease.

The current standard of care for B cell-mediated autoimmune disease often provides limited and transient therapeutic benefit while also weakening the humoral immune system. We believe our CAAR T cells have the potential to eliminate the reactive, antibody-producing B cells that are ultimately responsible for disease through precise targeting of cells that contain autoantibodies on their surface, while sparing normal B cells. As a result, we believe CAAR T cell therapy used in B cell-mediated autoimmune disease has the potential for durable elimination of pathogenic B cells and an associated elimination of clinical recurrences with an improved adverse event, or tolerability, profile relative to the current standard of care. Additionally, because self-reactive B cells make up only 0.01% to 1% of the normal B cell population, we believe the risk of on-target toxicity may be reduced compared to systemically immunosuppressive medications that non-specifically weaken the immune system.

Pipeline

We are a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on the discovery and development of engineered T cell therapies that have the potential to provide a deep and durable, perhaps curative, treatment for patients with autoimmune diseases. Our CABA™ platform encompasses two approaches – CARTA and CAART. Our current product candidate pipeline is illustrated below.

Two additional undisclosed disease targets, currently in discovery stage, and part of our pipeline portfolio through our Sponsored Research Agreement with Penn are not shown. We have discontinued work on the FVIII product candidate. This decision is due to the prioritization of other product candidates.

12

Our Product Candidates

CABA-201 for multiple autoimmune indications

Our lead product candidate for the CARTA strategy, CABA-201, is designed to achieve transient depletion of all CD19-positive B cells following a single infusion, allowing for the elimination disease-causing B cells with subsequent repopulation by naïve healthy B cells, providing potentially meaningful clinical responses to patients without long-term immunosuppression. Through immune system reset, we believe CABA-201 has the potential to transform the treatment in a broad range of autoimmune diseases.

CABA-201 is comprised of a fully-human anti-CD19 binder, which is the extracellular targeting domain. In addition, it contains a 4-1BB costimulatory domain and a CD3-zeta signaling domain, as shown in the figure below:

Image showing the design of CABA-201, with a fully human anti-CD19 binder, the 4-1BB costimulatory domain and the CD3-Zeta signaling domain. The costimulatory and signaling domain are identical to the construct used in the academic clinical studies published in Nature Medicine and Lancet Rheumatology that were evaluated in SLE and myositis, respectively.

Academic clinical data published in Nature Medicine in September 2022 demonstrate that a CD19-CAR T cell therapy with a 4-1BB co-stimulatory domain following lymphodepletion with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide induced a clinical remission in 5 out of 5 patients with moderate to severe, refractory SLE, with up to 17 months of follow up. (Mackensen, Andreas, et al). Grade 1 CRS was observed in 3 out of 5 patients, and there was no observation of neurotoxicity of any grade. Naïve immature B cells repopulated within 2-5 months of CAR T infusion in all patients, with no evidence of recurrence of disease or autoantibodies following repopulation. In addition, in February 2023, a case report was published in Lancet Rheumatology which demonstrated that the same CD19-CAR T cell therapy with a 4-1BB co-stimulatory domain at the same dose was administered following a similar preconditioning regimen with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide to a patient with anti-synthetase syndrome, which is a form of myositis. This patient experienced profound decreases in muscle inflammation, improvement in muscle function and reduction of autoantibody titers six months following therapy with reconstitution of the B cell population occurring within the follow-up period. Grade 1 CRS and no ICANS were reported.

Our licensed fully human CD19 binder has been clinically evaluated in a dual-CD19xCD22 CAR T candidate under development for B cell leukemia and lymphoma in an investigator-initiated trial in China, where IASO has reported a tolerability profile that we believe is favorable for development in autoimmune diseases. The activity of T cells expressing a 4-1BB-containing CAR with our binder was evaluated against T cells expressing a 4-1BB containing CAR utilizing the CD19 binder employed in the Nature Medicine study cited above, FMC63-CART, as a benchmark. Compared to FMC63-CART, CABA-201 exhibits comparable biologic activity in vitro and in vivo, as shown in the figure below. (Dai, Zhenyu, et al).

13

In vitro (top) and in vivo (bottom) data illustrating the binding affinity and body weight effects of a CD19-CAR T with the FMC63 binder vs. the binder utilized in CABA-201 (clone 78). Binding affinities and body weight impact are most similar between the FMC63 binder and Clone 78, which is the binder in CABA-201.

Given its structural and functional similarity to the CD19-CAR T construct employed in the academic clinical study published in Nature Medicine, including incorporation of a 4-1BB co-stimulatory domain, we believe CABA-201 may have the potential to reset the immune system and transform treatment of autoimmune diseases with high unmet need.

DSG3-CAART for Mucosal PV

Our lead product candidate for the CAART strategy, DSG3-CAART, is a CAAR T cell therapy expressing DSG3 as the extracellular domain of a chimeric immunoreceptor, and is designed to enable specific cytotoxicity toward B cells autoreactive to DSG3. We believe this strategy has the potential to directly eliminate the disease-causing cells in mPV, which may lead to lasting clinical remission without damage to the healthy immune system.

Disease Background

PV is a potentially fatal, chronic autoimmune disease characterized by acantholysis, which is the loss of adhesion between cells of the skin or mucous membranes. Desmosomes are a collection of proteins that provide the structure for epithelial cells to connect with each other. PV results when specific pathogenic autoantibodies disrupt desmosomes by targeting DSG3 and/or DSG1, which are proteins that are part of the desmosomes. These autoantibodies cause the upper layer of the epidermis to split away from its base resulting in characteristic erosions and blisters. Widespread damage to the skin and mucous membranes increases susceptibility to life-threatening systemic infections. PV has two major subtypes: (1) mPV, which is caused by DSG3 autoantibodies and affects the mucous membranes; and (2) mcPV, which is caused by DSG3 and DSG1 autoantibodies, affecting both the mucous membranes and the skin. PV affects 11,000-19,000 prevalent patients in the United States, of which approximately 25% have mPV and 75% have mcPV.

Like most autoimmune diseases, the current standard of care for PV relies on general immune suppression, which is often transiently effective but can lead to severe infection, potentially resulting in hospitalization and death. First-line therapy for PV typically consists of corticosteroids in moderate to high doses in combination with the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody rituximab where clinically appropriate. Second-line therapy focuses on the several systemically immunosuppressive medications such as mycophenolate, azathioprine, and methotrexate. Additional options used in the acute setting include plasmapheresis, or infusions of intravenous immunoglobulin.

14

B cell depletion with rituximab was approved by the FDA for the treatment of PV in 2018 and is playing an increasing role as part of the standard of care because it has proven to be one of the more effective therapies for PV. Despite its recent approval for use as a therapy with corticosteroids in PV, rituximab has several limitations in terms of efficacy, safety, and convenience. Rituximab treatment frequently results in relapse, which is reduced but still occurs despite chronic treatment every six months in PV. It does not specifically target the pathogenic B cells, but rather it depletes all CD20-expressing B cells, which leads to an ongoing risk of severe infection and death. As such, there remains not only an unmet medical need in PV, but also a need for safer therapies that can provide a reliable, durable, and complete remission without long-term immunosuppression.

Preclinical & Clinical Development Plan

A variety of in vitro and in vivo studies were conducted to evaluate DSG3-CAART from a preclinical activity and toxicity perspective and to support the IND for DSG3-CAART. The FDA cleared our IND for a Phase 1 trial of DSG3-CAART in September 2019. The FDA granted DSG3-CAART orphan drug designation for the treatment of PV in January 2020 and fast track designation for improving healing of mucosal blisters in patients with mPV in May 2020. We announced that the first patient was dosed in the DesCAARTesTM trial in December 2020, and enrollment is currently ongoing.

The DesCAARTesTM trial is an open-label trial to assess the safety and tolerability of various dosing regimens of DSG3-CAART in the treatment of subjects with active mPV. We expect that the Phase 1 trial will have three parts and a combination sub-study:

In Part A, the split dose uses dose fractionation to accommodate a low number of cells in the first infusion while still advancing the dose within the cohort up to 7.5 billion DSG3-CAART cells. In the combination sub-study, a dose of 2.5 billion DSG3-CAART cells is administered in combination with IVIG and cyclophosphamide pre-treatment. In Part B, the dose selected from Part A will be delivered in a decreased number of dose fractionations to determine the dose fractionation strategy. In Part C, subjects will be enrolled at the dose and fractionation, as determined in Part A and B, to generate additional safety and outcome data to support the rationale for and design of future clinical trials.

Patients are eligible to be enrolled if they have a confirmed diagnosis of mPV based on biopsy for histology and positive DSG3 ELISA; active disease at screening; elevated DSG3 by ELISA at screening; and previously been inadequately managed by, or refractory to, or relapsed after, or with contraindications to or intolerance of at least one prior systemic therapy. The primary objective of the trial is to evaluate the safety of DSG3-CAART cells, and secondary objectives include evaluating the initial signs of target engagement. The FDA has requested, and we have agreed, that we will share data from cohort A to inform a discussion on the optimal design of cohort C. According to FDA guidance, the submission of cohort A data is not gating to planned enrollment in cohort B and the FDA plans to provide feedback, if any, in a timely manner.

In December 2021, we reported top-line biologic activity data for the first two low dose cohorts, where no clear evidence of biologic activity was observed at doses that represented less than 2% of the current planned maximum dose in the trial, as well as the continued absence of any dose-limited toxicities, or DLTs, or clinically relevant adverse events. Furthermore, we announced the addition of a planned fifth cohort to receive a higher dose with a more consolidated dosing regimen. In May 2022, abstracts for our posters presented on May 17, 2022 at the American Society of Gene & Cell Therapy 25th Annual Meeting (ASGCT) were made available publicly, which summarized clinical and translational data from the first three cohorts in the DesCAARTesTM trial where we reported no DLTs, serious adverse events or clinically relevant adverse events within three months of DSG3-CAART infusion. The observed dose-dependent increase in persistence indicated that DSG3-CAART cells were not eliminated by soluble anti-DSG3 antibodies. Peak persistence in cohort A4 was at the lower end of the range observed with CAR T therapy in B cell cancers; however, the range of persistence observed with CD19-CART therapy in oncology has not been confirmed to be necessary or sufficient for clinical response in patients with mPV. In August 2022, we announced that two additional dose cohorts are planned after cohort A5: A6m (multi-dose regimen at 10 to 15 billion cells) and a combination cohort (2.5 billion cells in addition to patient pre-treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and cyclophosphamide). We also announced that the A5e cohort (enhanced manufacturing process at 5.0 to 7.5 billion cells) was no longer planned to occur immediately after cohort A5. In September 2022, we presented updated clinical and translational data through six months of follow-up in cohorts A1 through A4 as well as 28-day safety data and DSG3-CAART persistence data through day 29 for cohorts A1 through A5 from the DesCAARTesTM trial at the 31st European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) Congress. In October 2022, we presented additional clinical and translational data on those cohorts at the 29th European Society of Gene and Cell Therapy (ESGCT) Congress. Additionally, we have disclosed

15

that no DLTs were observed through cohort A5, and that no clear trends in antibody levels or disease activity reduction were observed through cohort A5, though one subject in cohort A4 had no disease activity by three months post-infusion while reducing steroid usage during that period, an antibody titer that dropped more than 20% by three months post-infusion, and was the only patient in the first four cohorts that had detectable DSG3-CAART persistence at the three month time point following initial DSG3-CAART infusion. Based on the data observed from these cohorts, we announced that the combination sub-study would be prioritized to follow cohort A5.

DSG3/1-CAART for mcPV

Disease Background

Our next PV product candidate, DSG3/1-CAART, is being designed to target DSG3 and/or DSG1 autoreactive B cell receptors on pathogenic B cells that cause mcPV. mcPV is the most severe and most common subtype of PV and affects approximately 75% of PV patients. While mPV is caused by DSG3 autoantibodies, mcPV involves autoantibodies to both DSG3 and DSG1, resulting in the additional involvement of skin erosion and blistering. Similar to mPV, mcPV is typically treated with immune suppression, which has a high rate of relapse and potential for hospitalizations and fatal infections.

CAAR development for mcPV, based on the targeting of DSG3- and/or DSG1-specific B cells, has shown promising preclinical results. DSG1 CAAR T cells specifically killed DSG1-specific B cells in vitro. In addition, we observed that with a 1:1 mixture of DSG3 and DSG1 CAAR T cells had killing capabilities without synergistic or antagonistic effect. The activity and toxicity of DSG3 and DSG1-CAAR T cells was evaluated using human skin xenografts in comparison with anti-CART19 cells, which are known from human clinical trials not to cause direct skin toxicity. A 1:1 mixture of DSG3 and DSG1 CAAR T cells did not show off-target toxicity in vivo.

Preclinical & Clinical Development Plan

From a regulatory and clinical trial design perspective, we anticipate that many of the elements incorporated into the DesCAARTesTM trial will carry over to DSG3/1-CAART, including trial design features as well as site selection. We believe that, because mcPV is the most prevalent subset of PV and the patients are generally followed by the same subspecialists, it will allow for a wider patient pool eligible for a clinical trial.

The size of the DSG3/1 product candidate will likely require us to incorporate additional technologies to accommodate the size of the final CAAR construct. While a product that administers a DSG3 CAAR and DSG1 CAAR as two separate products may be feasible, we believe that there would be significant advantages to developing a combined product from a regulatory and commercial perspective.

MuSK-CAART for MuSK Myasthenia Gravis

Disease Background

MG is an autoimmune disease induced by autoantibodies targeting the neuromuscular junction, or NMJ, which can lead to life-threatening muscle weakness. Generalized MG, or gMG, is characterized by profound muscle weakness throughout the body, which may result in motor impairment, disabling fatigue, shortness of breath due to respiratory muscle weakness and episodes of respiratory failure. gMG affects approximately 50,000 to 80,000 patients in the United States. The majority of patients who develop gMG have autoantibodies against some part of the NMJ that are known to be pathogenic. 80% to 90% of patients with gMG have autoantibodies against the acetylcholine receptor, or AChR, detectable in their serum. Approximately 6% to 7.5% of patients with gMG have autoantibodies against MuSK, which is a different target on the surface of the muscle membrane.

Patients diagnosed with MuSK MG have a different recommended treatment course compared to patients with AChR MG. Importantly, many patients with MuSK MG respond poorly to cholinesterase inhibitors, which are often the first line of therapy in AChR MG. Consequently, patients with MuSK MG are typically started on corticosteroids in addition to one or more steroid-sparing immunosuppressive agents. Corticosteroids are tapered to the extent possible to prevent disease relapse, though many remain dependent on corticosteroid despite concomitant treatment with immunosuppressive medications. In the acute setting, plasma exchange or intravenous immunoglobulin may be used to address severe disease. Rituximab is often considered as a second-line therapeutic option in patients with an inadequate response to initial immunosuppressive medications. Importantly, complement is not thought to be meaningfully implicated in the pathophysiology of MuSK MG, and complement inhibitors are not indicated for treatment of disease.

16

Preclinical & Clinical Development Plan

Data from the in vitro and in vivo studies used to support the IND for MuSK-CAART were recently published in Nature Biotechnology, which showed preclinical data demonstrating that MuSK-CAART had similar efficacy as CD19-CAR T cells for depletion of MuSK-specific B cells and retained cytolytic activity in the presence of soluble anti-MuSK antibodies. These data contributed to the Company’s IND application for the recently initiated Phase 1 MusCAARTes™ clinical study of MuSK-CAART (Oh, S., Mao, X., Manfredo-Vieira, S. et al. Precision targeting of autoantigen-specific B cells in muscle-specific tyrosine kinase myasthenia gravis with chimeric autoantibody receptor T cells. Nat Biotechnol (2023)). In the fourth quarter of 2021, we submitted an IND to the FDA for MuSK-CAART, which became effective in January 2022. In February 2022, MuSK-CAART received fast track designation from the FDA for improving activities of daily living and muscle strength in patients with MuSK antibody-positive myasthenia gravis. We initiated the MusCAARTesTM trial in November 2022.

The MusCAARTesTM trial is an open-label trial to assess the safety and tolerability of various dosing regimens of MuSK-CAART in the treatment of subjects with active MuSK MG. MuSK-CAART is administered by intravenous infusion, using a single infusion of MuSK-CAART cells at a starting dose informed by initial clinical data from the DesCAARTesTM trial and prior CAR T trials. We expect the Phase 1 trial will have two parts:

In Part A, the dose will initially begin at 500 million MuSK-CAART cells with plans to escalate up to 7.5 billion MuSK-CAART cells in three dose cohorts. Cohort A2 is planned at 2.5 billion MuSK-CAART cells, cohort A3 is planned at 7.5 billion MuSK-CAART cells and cohort A4 is planned at 2.5 billion MuSK-CAART cells in combination with cyclophosphamide pre-treatment. Cohorts A3 and A4 will be enrolled concurrently, subject to cohort A2 being well-tolerated with a preference for enrollment into A4. We plan to enroll at least two patients per cohort and plan to dose a total of 6 subjects at the selected dose for Part A. In Part B, subjects will be enrolled at the dose determined in Part A to generate additional safety and outcome data to support the rationale for and design of future clinical trials. We plan to enroll approximately 12 subjects in Part B.

Patients are eligible to be enrolled if they have a confirmed diagnosis of MuSK MG based on a positive anti-MuSK antibody test; myasthenia gravis severity Class I-IVa, a Myasthenia Gravis Composite Score ≥4 and a history of a negative anti-AChR antibody test. The primary objective of the trial is to evaluate the safety of MuSK-CAART cells, and a key secondary objective is to evaluate the initial signs of biologic activity. The primary endpoint of the study is the incidence of adverse events within three months of MuSK-CAART infusion, including dose limiting toxicity defined as occurring within 28 days of infusion.

PLA2R-CAART for PLA2R MN

Disease Background

Primary MN is an immune-mediated kidney disease caused by autoantibodies against phospholipase A2 receptor (PLA2R), a single-pass transmembrane protein expressed in the glomerulus of the kidney. Since the discovery of anti-PLA2R autoantibodies in 2009, evidence has shown that these autoantibodies accumulate as immune complexes in the glomeruli of the kidney and damage the filtration barrier, leading to nephrotic syndrome as characterized by proteinuria. Many patients with PLA2R-associated MN are at risk for progression to kidney failure.

Primary MN affects approximately 15,000 patients in the United States and is associated with autoantibodies directed to PLA2R in 70-80% of patients. Immunosuppressive treatments are commonly used to treat MN, with increasing use of B cell-depleting therapies such as rituximab in the first line for medium to high-risk patients. However, high unmet need remains, as a significant fraction of patients either relapse or fail to respond following treatment with immunosuppressive therapies. By selectively depleting the PLA2R autoantibody expressing B cells that cause disease, we believe PLA2R-CAART could provide a potentially safe, effective, and durable therapeutic option for patients with PLA2R-associated MN.

Preclinical & Clinical Development Plan

As presented at the American Society of Nephrology Kidney Week in the fourth quarter of 2021, in vitro cytotoxicity and patient IgG adsorption assays have established the preliminary activity of PLA2R-CAART cells for antigen-specific B cell depletion in PLA2R MN. Multiple PLA2R-CAART cells caused specific lysis of anti-PLA2R hybridomas, and PLA2R CAARS adsorbed the majority (>95%) of anti-PLA2R IgG autoantibodies in MN sera. PLA2R-CAART cytotoxicity was preserved over time with physiologic levels of PLA2R MN plasma IgG. Though PLA2R MN IgG inhibited PLA2R-CAART cytotoxicity initially, the cytotoxicity increased with time, likely due to CAART cell proliferation and/or new CAAR synthesis.

17

To evaluate for preclinical signals of safety, high throughput screening for off-target PLA2R CAAR interactions was performed, and no off-target binding interactions were identified.

We anticipate that many of the learnings from our more advanced CAART programs will provide expertise in developing a clinical and regulatory strategy for PLA2R-CAART, and we plan to employ therapeutic area-specific strategies, such as the fact that PLA2R antibody levels correlate with proteinuria, a commonly used surrogate endpoint in clinical trials. We conducted a pre-IND interaction with the FDA to discuss the development path for PLA2R-CAART in the fourth quarter of 2021.

Manufacturing

Manufacturing Strategy

We intend to implement a three-stage plan that we believe will ultimately enable us to achieve manufacturing independence. Part of our strategy relies on engaging non-profit and commercial suppliers early and in a staged manner. We believe partnering with proven and reputable manufacturing partners will allow us to efficiently deploy financial and personnel resources. Stage 1 of this plan is in place and utilizes the deep expertise in cell and vector manufacturing from our partners at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, or CHOP, and Penn. This included early development work, support of the DSG3-CAART IND, and cell and vector product manufacturing for our DesCAARTesTM trial. We believe these facilities will allow us to move efficiently into clinical trials but are not sufficient to support a commercial license.

Stage 2 of our plan is designed to engage partners who are qualified for manufacturing of vector at commercial grade and scale and cell therapy products. We are aware that changes in any manufacturing process or facility introduces regulatory and scientific risk to a development program, if the changes result in a product that is not comparable. We plan to mitigate these risks primarily in two ways:

In addition to Stage 2, and contingent on sufficient clinical evidence from our planned clinical trials, we are further planning to pursue Stage 3 in manufacturing supply. During Stage 3, we plan to lease, build, qualify and run our own manufacturing facility, or establish a strategic partnership to leverage the partner’s manufacturing expertise. We believe this additional stage will enable full control of continuous improvement, product development and commercial supply for products arising from our CABA™ platform.

Vector Manufacturing

The lentiviral vector that we have used in the initial subjects in our DesCAARTesTM trial was manufactured at CHOP. The lentiviral vector that we plan to use in the initial subjects in our MusCAARTesTM trial, and for CABA-201, was manufactured at Penn. We have reserved additional vector manufacturing slots at Penn and CHOP, which we may use in our subsequent clinical trials. In parallel, we have engaged in development work with multiple CMOs to secure production slots for vector which may be used in our DSG3-CAART or subsequent clinical trials. In December 2021, we entered into a license and supply agreement with Oxford Biomedica to supply lentiviral vector for the clinical and commercial development of our DSG3-CAART candidate. We believe these efforts will provide us with sufficient clinical-grade vector to move forward with our anticipated clinical trials.

18

Cell Manufacturing

We have entered into a collaboration with the Clinical Cell and Vaccine Production Facility, or CVPF, at Penn, to provide focused scientific, technical and regulatory support for CAAR T and CAR T cell manufacture. CVPF is accredited by the Foundation for the Accreditation of Cellular Therapy and is capable of and experienced at supporting manufacture for early-phase clinical trials of novel cell therapy products in first-in-man clinical trials. We expect to rely upon CVPF to provide initial Phase 1 clinical trial drug supply for CABA-201 and DSG3-CAART. Penn’s manufacturing process for DSG3-CAART is directly related to the process developed at Penn for early clinical trials of CART19, which subsequently became known commercially as Kymriah. The process was later transferred to Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation and further modified for the Kymriah program.

As we scale our manufacturing of DSG3-CAART and our other product candidates to meet our expected needs for further clinical trials, we may or may not rely on Penn, but we also expect to rely on CMOs and other third parties for the manufacturing and processing of our clinical trial materials. Any CMO that we select will be subject to cGMP requirements. We believe the use of contract manufacturing for our pipeline programs will be cost-effective and allow us to rapidly prepare for clinical trials in accordance with our development plans. In preparation for this transition, we have engaged multiple third-party contractors to manufacture clinical grade viral vector used to deliver the applicable CAAR or CAR gene into the T cells. We have also initiated development work with certain contractors for cGMP and commercial vector production. We expect third-party manufacturers will be capable of providing and processing sufficient quantities of our product candidates to meet anticipated clinical trial demands and commercial need. In January 2021, we initiated a collaboration with WuXi to serve as our cell processing manufacturing partner for our ongoing MusCAARTesTM trial, which collaboration was amended in August 2022.

Commercialization

Our aim is to become a fully integrated cellular therapy company focused on improving the lives of patients with autoimmune diseases. The product candidates from our CABA™ platform are designed to address autoimmune indications where there is a compelling opportunity to improve clinical outcomes in comparison with the current standard of care.

Our lead CARTA product candidate, CABA-201, is under development for autoimmune diseases with serious unmet medical need. Based on the differentiated expertise of Cabaletta’s team members and our years of experience in conducting cell therapy clinical trials in autoimmunity, we are focused on being the first company to launch a cell therapy product for patients with autoimmune diseases, while continuing to innovate on next-generation approaches and differentiation strategies to deliver an optimal product candidate profile. Our CAART product candidates are focused on rare disease populations where we believe there is potential to commercialize independently due to the concentration of treatment paradigms and limited but easily identified patient populations.

We aim to achieve full manufacturing independence through establishment of our own manufacturing facilities and/or through a strategic partnership. Our development and commercialization efforts will focus initially on the United States, with expansion to the European Union and Asia-Pacific geographies, potentially with the support of strategic partners.

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong focus on intellectual property. We face competition from many different players, including large and specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic research organizations and governmental agencies. Any therapeutic candidates we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with the existing standard of care as well as any novel therapies that may gain regulatory approval in the future.

There are multiple companies with marketed CAR T therapies for the treatment of hematologic cancers, including Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Bristol Myers Squibb, Johnson and Johnson, Inc. and Legend Biotech Corporation. A subset of these companies along with other biopharmaceutical companies have announced CD19-targeting therapies in development for the treatment of autoimmune diseases. There are also a number of companies with leading autoimmune franchises but without disclosed cell therapy platforms who may become competitors.

Existing treatment options for PV are limited. Rituximab, marketed by Roche Holding AG, is the first drug to have received approval for PV in the United States in over 60 years. In Europe, the approved therapies for PV are corticosteroids, azathioprine, and rituximab. Other standard of care treatments include various immunosuppressants, plasmapheresis, and intravenous immunoglobulin infusions given monthly or on another periodic chronic basis. Additionally, multiple biopharmaceutical companies have therapies in clinical development. Competition in the MuSK MG autoimmune space is currently dominated by the current

19

standard of care, rituximab. A second approved approach to treating patients is IVIG, which is available through CSL Behring LLC, Grifols, S.A., and Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation. Additionally, multiple biopharmaceutical companies have therapies in clinical development. We believe we are the first and only company developing CAAR T drug candidates for the treatment of B cell-mediated autoimmune diseases.

Within the CAR T field we recognize that a subset of companies with an investment and expertise in CAR T cell development for oncology indications have announced they intend to leverage their technology in autoimmune disease-affected populations. We are aware of other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that are exploring CART-19 as well as other methods of engineering T cells, natural killer (NK) cells or bispecific antibodies for the treatment of autoimmune conditions.

Many of the companies against which we are competing or against which we may compete in the future have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals, and marketing approved products than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

Intellectual Property and Barriers to Entry

We strive to protect the proprietary technologies that we believe are important to our business, including pursuing and maintaining patent protection intended to cover our product candidates and their use, as well as other inventions that are important to our business. In addition to patent protection, we also rely on know-how, confidentiality agreements, invention assignment agreements and trade secrets to protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection, to develop and maintain our proprietary position. The confidentiality agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information and the invention assignment agreements are designed to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed for us by our employees, consultants or certain other third parties. We seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. While we have confidence in our agreements and security measures, either may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or independently discovered by competitors.

Our commercial success depends in part upon our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for commercially important technologies, inventions and trade secrets related to our business, defend and enforce our intellectual property rights, particularly our patent rights, preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets and operate without infringing valid and enforceable intellectual property rights of others.

The patent positions for biotechnology companies like us are generally uncertain and can involve complex legal, scientific and factual issues. In addition, the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before a patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted and even challenged after issuance. As a result, we cannot guarantee that any of our product candidates will be protectable or remain protected by enforceable patents. We cannot predict whether the patent applications we are currently pursuing will issue as patents in any particular jurisdiction or whether the claims of any issued patents will provide sufficient proprietary protection from competitors. Any patents that we hold may be challenged, circumvented or invalidated by third parties.

As of March 1, 2023, our patent estate (all of which has been in-licensed) included five issued U.S. patents, two granted foreign patents, seven pending U.S. patent applications, and 50 pending foreign patent applications. See “—Our Material Agreements—IASO Agreement” and “—Our Material Agreements—Amended and Restated License Agreement with the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania and the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.”

With regard to our CABA-201 product candidate, we have one pending U.S. patent application and counterpart patent applications pending in Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Hong Kong and Japan, which are directed to a CD19 specific chimeric antigen receptor and a CD19-specific antibody binding site. These patent applications, if issued, would be expected to expire in 2040. This patent family is owned by IASO and is exclusively licensed to us in the field of the license.

With regard to our DSG3-CAART and DSG3/1-CAART product candidates, we have five issued U.S. patents with claims directed to a CAAR containing an extracellular domain containing DSG3, DSG1 or fragments thereof, nucleic acids encoding the CAAR, genetically modified cells comprising the CAAR, and methods of treatment using the same. These patents are scheduled to

20

expire between 2035 and 2037, without taking potential patent term extensions into account. We also have one pending U.S. patent application and counterpart patents granted in Europe and China, which are scheduled to expire in 2035, and patent applications pending in Canada, China, Europe and Hong Kong. This patent family is owned by Penn and exclusively licensed to us in the field of the license.

With regard to our MuSK-CAAR T cell product candidate, we have one pending U.S. patent application and counterpart patent applications pending in Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, Korea, Mexico and New Zealand, which if issued, would be expected to expire in 2039. We have one pending international patent application filed under the patent cooperation treaty. Any patents claiming priority to the international patent application would be expected to expire in 2042. These patent families are owned by Penn and exclusively licensed to us in the field of the license.

With regard to our PLA2R-CAAR T cell product candidate, we have two pending U.S. patent applications and counterpart patent applications pending in Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Israel, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, and Russia, which if issued, would be expected to expire in 2039. This patent family is owned by Penn and exclusively licensed to us in the field of the license.

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term of the patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries in which we file, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest date of filing a non-provisional patent application.

In the United States, the term of a patent covering an FDA-approved drug may be eligible for a patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act as compensation for the loss of patent term during the FDA regulatory review process. The period of extension may be up to five years beyond the expiration of the patent, but cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval. Only one patent among those eligible for an extension may be extended, and a given patent may only be extended once. Similar provisions are available in Europe and in certain other jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. It is possible that issued U.S. patents covering each of our product candidates may be entitled to patent term extensions. If our product candidates receive FDA approval, we intend to apply for patent term extensions, if available, to extend the term of patents that cover the approved product candidates. We also intend to seek patent term extensions in any jurisdictions where they are available, however, there is no guarantee that the applicable authorities, including the FDA, will agree with our assessment of whether such extensions should be granted, and even if granted, the length of such extensions.

In addition to patent protection, we also rely on know-how and trade secret protection for our proprietary information that is not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection, to develop and maintain our proprietary position. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. Although we take steps to protect our proprietary information, including restricting access to our premises and our confidential information, as well as entering into agreements with our employees, consultants, advisors and potential collaborators, third parties may independently develop the same or similar proprietary information or may otherwise gain access to our proprietary information. As a result, we may be unable to meaningfully protect our know-how, trade secrets, and other proprietary information.

In addition, we plan to rely on regulatory protection based on orphan drug exclusivities, data exclusivities, and market exclusivities. See “—Government Regulation” for additional information.

21

Our Material Agreements

IASO Agreement

On October 7, 2022, we entered into an Exclusive License Agreement (the IASO Agreement) with IASO. Pursuant to the IASO Agreement, we received an exclusive, worldwide license under certain IASO intellectual property to use a novel clinical-stage anti-CD19 binder to develop, manufacture, commercialize and otherwise exploit T cell products directed to CD19 for the purpose of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of any autoimmune or alloimmune indications in humans. IASO has the right of first negotiation if we desire to grant a third party an exclusive license to develop, manufacture, commercialize or otherwise exploit the licensed products in the Greater China region. Pursuant to the IASO Agreement, we and IASO have agreed, subject to certain exceptions, to refrain from engaging in certain competitive activities with respect to certain programs. As partial consideration for the exclusive license, IASO received an upfront payment of $2.5 million. IASO is also eligible to receive up to mid double digit millions in milestone payments based upon the achievement of specified pre-clinical, development and regulatory milestones, and up to an additional low triple digit millions in milestone payments based upon achievement of specified sales milestones, for a total consideration, inclusive of the upfront payment, of up to $162 million, along with tiered mid-single digit royalties on future net sales for licensed products that may result from the IASO Agreement. We also may sublicense through multiple tiers the rights granted to it by IASO under the IASO Agreement at any time, however, we must pay IASO a low double-digit percentage of any revenue obtained from sublicenses or options to third parties, subject to certain customary exclusions. The IASO Agreement will continue on a country-by-country, licensed product-by-licensed product basis until the expiration of the royalty term as identified in the IASO Agreement, unless earlier terminated. We and IASO may terminate the IASO Agreement for a material, uncured breach or insolvency of the other party. We may also terminate the IASO Agreement at will upon advance written notice and in the event IASO rejects the IASO Agreement due to bankruptcy-related matters. IASO may also terminate the IASO Agreement if we fail to achieve certain specified diligence milestones in a timely manner and/or if we commence any patent challenges with respect to the patents and patent applications relating to the licensed sequence, in each case upon advance written notice.

Amended and Restated License Agreement with the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania and the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia

In July 2019, we entered into an amended and restated license agreement, or the License Agreement, as further amended in May 2020 and October 2021, with Penn and CHOP, collectively the Institutions, pursuant to which we obtained (a) a non-exclusive, non-sublicensable, worldwide research license to make, have made and use products in two subfields of use, (b) effective as of October 2018, an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing license, with the right to sublicense, under certain patent rights of the Institution to make, use, sell, offer for sale and import products in the same two subfields of use, and (c) effective as of October 2018, a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing license, with limited rights to sublicense, under certain of Penn’s know-how, which know-how satisfies certain criteria and is listed on a mutually agreed-to schedule, to make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale, import and have imported products in the same two subfields of use. Our rights are subject to the rights of the U.S. government and certain rights retained by the Institutions. The License Agreement was amended in May 2020 to add certain intellectual property relating to one of the two undisclosed disease targets and in October 2021 to extend certain dates by which we must achieve certain financial and regulatory milestones.

Unless earlier terminated, the License Agreement expires on the expiration or abandonment or other termination of the last valid claim in the intellectual property we license from Penn. We may terminate the License Agreement at any time for convenience upon 60 days written notice. In the event of an uncured, material breach, Penn may terminate the License Agreement upon 60 days written notice.

Penn maintains control of all filing, prosecution and maintenance of the Institutions’ patent rights licensed by us, and we are responsible for all ongoing patent costs during the term of the agreement. We also reimbursed Penn for its out-of-pocket expenses incurred prior to the effective date of the agreement with respect to the filing, prosecution and maintenance of the patent rights licensed by us. Under the terms of the License Agreement, we were also obligated to pay $2.0 million annually for three years beginning August 2018 for funding to the laboratories of each of Drs. Milone and Payne. See “—Sponsored Research Agreements with the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania.”

Under the License Agreement, we must use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize a product in each subfield. During the term of the License Agreement until the first commercial sale of the first product, we are obligated to pay Penn a non-refundable, non-creditable annual license maintenance fee of $10,000. We are required to pay certain milestone payments upon the achievement of specified clinical and commercial milestones. Milestone payments are reduced by a certain percentage for

22

the second product that achieves a milestone, by an additional percentage for the third product that achieves a milestone, and so on, for each subsequent product that achieves a milestone. In the event that we are able to successfully develop and launch multiple products under the License Agreement, total milestone payments could be approximately $21.0 million. Penn is also eligible to receive tiered royalties at percentage rates in the low single-digits, subject to an annual minimum royalty, on annual worldwide net sales of any products that are commercialized by us, our affiliates or our sublicensees that contain, use, embody, result from the use of or incorporate, or are covered by, the intellectual property licensed by us. To the extent we sublicense our license rights under the License Agreement, Penn would be eligible to receive tiered sublicense income at percentage rates in the mid-single to low double-digits. We have also entered into a subscription and technology transfer agreement with Penn, pursuant to which we owed Penn an upfront subscription fee, which was paid in 2019, and a nominal non-refundable royalty on the net sales of products, a portion of which will be credited toward milestone payments and royalties under this License Agreement. Technology transfer activities would be at our cost and subject to agreement as to the technology to be transferred.

Sponsored Research Agreements with Penn

Dr. Michael Milone

In April 2018, we entered into a Sponsored Research Agreement with Penn for the laboratory of Dr. Milone, or the Milone SRA, pursuant to which we agreed to sponsor certain research related to the development of (i) T cell based immunotherapies for autoimmune and alloimmune antibodies of pathologic significance and (ii) a clinical grade microfluidic device designed for single step selection and activation of T cells from blood samples to be conducted in Dr. Milone’s laboratory at Penn. Under the Milone SRA, Penn granted us a perpetual, irrevocable, non-transferable, non-exclusive license to use all intellectual property resulting from the research sponsored by us for internal research purposes. In addition, Penn granted us an option to include, in exchange for a fee, any intellectual property resulting from the research sponsored by us that relates to CAAR T cell therapies for hemophilia and/or pemphigus within the scope of the License Agreement. Penn also granted us an option to negotiate a license to all other intellectual property resulting from the research sponsored by us. In April 2021 and October 2021, the Milone SRA was amended to extend the term of the original research plan. The Milone SRA expired in November 2022.

Dr. Aimee Payne

In April 2018, we entered into a Sponsored Research Agreement, or SRA, with Penn for the laboratory of Dr. Payne, or the Payne SRA, pursuant to which we agreed to sponsor certain research related to the development of T cell based immunotherapies for autoimmune and alloimmune antibodies of pathologic significance to be conducted in Dr. Payne’s laboratory at Penn. In May 2020, the Payne SRA was amended to include CAAR design and optimization efforts in three additional B cell-mediated autoimmune diseases. In August 2020, this agreement was further amended to extend the term of the original research plan. In December 2021, we further amended the Payne SRA to extend the term and expand the workplan to include additional correlative studies related to the DesCAARTesTM trial. Unless earlier terminated, the Payne SRA will expire in December 2024. In December 2022, we signed a budget amendment for the Payne SRA. Under the Payne SRA, Penn granted us a perpetual, irrevocable, non-transferable, non-exclusive license to use all intellectual property resulting from the research sponsored by us for internal research purposes. In addition, Penn granted us an option to include, in exchange for a fee, any intellectual property resulting from the research sponsored by us that relates to CAAR T cell therapies for hemophilia, MG and/or pemphigus within the scope of the License Agreement. Penn also granted us an option to negotiate a license to all other intellectual property resulting from the research sponsored by us.

The total cost of the two SRAs was $12.6 million, which satisfies the $2.0 million annual obligation under the License Agreement. As of December 31, 2022, the activities under the Payne and Milone SRAs have been completed and the full cost has been incurred.

Master Translational Research Services Agreement with Penn

In October 2018, we entered into a Master Translational Research Services Agreement with Penn, or the Services Agreement, pursuant to which Penn agreed to perform certain services related to the research and development of the technology licensed to us under the License Agreement, as well as certain clinical, regulatory and manufacturing services. The Services Agreement will expire on the later of (i) October 19, 2021 or (ii) completion of the services for which we have engaged Penn under the Services Agreement. Either party may terminate this agreement with or without cause upon a certain number of days’ prior written notice. The services encompassed by the Services Agreement are performed by different organizations at Penn pursuant to certain addenda to the Services Agreement, including the Center for Advanced Retinal and Ocular Therapeutics, or CAROT, Addendum, as amended in May 2020, and the CVPF Addendum. In addition, in July 2019 we entered into an Alliance Agreement with Penn, pursuant to which we will pay Penn a nominal annual fee in order for Penn to provide an adequate and consistent level of support to the services that it provides to us.

23

The CAROT Addendum

Under the CAROT Addendum, Penn manufactures vector that is then to be used by the CVPF in the manufacture of our product candidates. In the event that certain materials owned by Penn are incorporated into a product developed for us, Penn has agreed to grant us a limited license to use those materials. Further, Penn agreed to grant us an exclusive, paid-up, royalty-free, transferable, irrevocable, perpetual exclusive license to any deliverables produced under the CAROT Addendum, except with respect to certain technical information of Penn that is contained or incorporated in the deliverables, to which Penn agreed to grant us a limited nonexclusive license. However, any necessary technology transfer would be pursuant to the subscription and technology transfer agreement described above.

The CVPF Addendum

Under the CVPF Addendum, Penn conducts process validation studies and large-scale engineering runs for our product candidates. Under the CVPF Addendum, CVPF will contractually agree to manufacture agreed upon quantities of DSG3-CAART material for use in connection with our DesCAARTesTM trial, unless the agreement is terminated by either party. Any necessary technology transfer would be pursuant to the subscription and technology transfer agreement described above.

Oxford Biomedica

In December 2021, we entered into a Licence and Supply agreement, or LSA, with Oxford Biomedica (UK) Limited wherein the LSA grants us a non-exclusive license to Oxford’s LentiVector® platform for its application in our DSG3-CAART program and puts in place a multi-year vector supply agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, we were required to pay Oxford an upfront fee, as well as costs associated with initial vector manufacturing activities for a total cost of up to approximately $4.0 million. Oxford is eligible to receive regulatory and sales milestones in the low tens of millions and royalties in the low single digits on net sales of products that incorporate the Oxford technology. We can terminate the agreement at will upon advance written notice and subject to certain manufacturing slot cancellation fees.

Wuxi Agreement

In January 2021, we entered into an agreement with WuXi, or the Wuxi Agreement, to serve as our cell processing manufacturing partner for the MuSK-CAART Phase 1 clinical trial, or MusCAARTes TM trial. The WuXi Agreement will expire the later of January 2024, or upon completion of WuXi’s services related to the MusCAARTesTM trial. We have the right to terminate the WuXi Agreement for convenience or other reasons specified in the WuXi Agreement upon prior written notice. If we terminate the WuXi Agreement, we will be obligated to pay an early termination fee of up to $1,500.

Government Regulation

U.S. Regulation

As a biopharmaceutical company that operates in the United States, we are subject to extensive regulation. Our cell products will be regulated as biologics. With this classification, commercial production of our products will need to occur in registered facilities in compliance with cGMP for biologics. The FDA categorizes human cell- or tissue-based products as either minimally manipulated or more than minimally manipulated, and has determined that more than minimally manipulated products require clinical trials to demonstrate product safety and efficacy and the submission of a BLA for marketing authorization. Our products are considered more than minimally manipulated and will require evaluation in clinical trials and the submission and approval of a BLA before we can market them.

Government authorities in the United States (at the federal, state and local level) and in other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacturing, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of biopharmaceutical products such as those we are developing. Our product candidates must be approved by the FDA before they may be legally marketed in the United States and by the appropriate foreign regulatory agency before they may be legally marketed in foreign countries. Generally, our activities in other countries will be subject to regulation that is similar in nature and scope as that imposed in the United States, although there can be important differences. Additionally, some significant aspects of regulation in Europe are addressed in a centralized way, but country-specific regulation remains essential in many respects. The process for

24

obtaining regulatory marketing approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

U.S. Biological Product Development

In the United States, the FDA regulates biologics under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and the Public Health Service Act, or PHSA, and their implementing regulations. Biologics are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may result in delays to the conduct of a study, regulatory review and approval or subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include, among other actions, the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, license suspension or revocation, refusal to allow an applicant to proceed with clinical trials, imposition of a clinical hold, issuance of untitled or warning letters, product recalls or withdrawals from the market, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement of profits, or civil or criminal investigations or penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.

Our drug product candidates must be approved by the FDA through the Biologics License Application, or BLA, process before they may be legally marketed in the United States. The process required by the FDA before a biologic may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

The data required to support a BLA is generated in two distinct development stages: preclinical and clinical. The preclinical development stage generally involves laboratory evaluations of drug chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as studies to evaluate toxicity in animals, which support subsequent clinical testing. The conduct of the preclinical studies must comply with federal regulations, including GLPs. The sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical studies, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, as well as other information, to the FDA as part of the IND. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational drug product to humans. The central focus of an IND submission is on the general investigational plan and the protocol(s) for human trials. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA raises concerns or questions regarding the proposed clinical trials and places the IND on clinical hold within that 30-day time period. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. The FDA may also impose clinical holds on a drug product candidate at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns, non-compliance, or other issues affecting the integrity of the trial. Accordingly, we cannot be sure that submission of an IND will result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that could cause the trial to be suspended or terminated.

In addition to the submission of an IND to the FDA before initiation of a clinical trial in the United States, certain human clinical trials involving recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules are subject to oversight of institutional biosafety committees,

25

or IBCs, as set forth in the NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules, or NIH Guidelines. Under the NIH Guidelines, recombinant and synthetic nucleic acids are defined as: (i) molecules that are constructed by joining nucleic acid molecules and that can replicate in a living cell (i.e., recombinant nucleic acids); (ii) nucleic acid molecules that are chemically or by other means synthesized or amplified, including those that are chemically or otherwise modified but can base pair with naturally occurring nucleic acid molecules (i.e., synthetic nucleic acids); or (iii) molecules that result from the replication of those described in (i) or (ii). Specifically, under the NIH Guidelines, supervision of human gene transfer trials includes evaluation and assessment by an IBC, a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees research utilizing recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules at that institution. The IBC assesses the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment, and such review may result in some delay before initiation of a clinical trial. While the NIH Guidelines are not mandatory unless the research in question is being conducted at or sponsored by institutions receiving NIH funding of recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research, many companies and other institutions not otherwise subject to the NIH Guidelines voluntarily follow them.

The clinical stage of development involves the administration of the drug product candidate to healthy volunteers and patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control, in accordance with GCPs, which include the requirement 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, subject selection and exclusion criteria, and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety and assess efficacy. Each protocol, and any subsequent amendments to the protocol, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB at or servicing each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted. An IRB is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of trial participants and considers such items as whether the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed.

There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trial results to public registries. Sponsors of certain clinical trials of FDA-regulated products, including biologics, are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information, which is publicly available at www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Clinical trials are generally conducted in three sequential phases, known as Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3, and may overlap. Phase 1 clinical trials generally involve a small number of healthy volunteers who are initially exposed to a single dose and then multiple doses of the drug product candidate. The primary purpose of these clinical trials is to assess the metabolism, pharmacologic action tolerability, adverse effects, and safety of the drug product candidate and, if possible, to gain early evidence on effectiveness. Phase 2 clinical trials typically involve studies in disease-affected patients to determine the dose required to produce the desired benefits. At the same time, safety and further pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic information is collected, as well as identification of possible adverse effects and safety risks and preliminary evaluation of efficacy. Phase 3 clinical trials generally involve large numbers of patients at multiple sites, in multiple countries, and are designed to provide the data necessary to demonstrate the efficacy of the product for its intended use, its safety in use, and to establish the overall benefit/risk relationship of the product and provide an adequate basis for product approval. Phase 3 clinical trials may include comparisons with placebo and/or other comparator treatments. The duration of treatment is often extended to mimic the actual use of a product during marketing. Generally, two adequate and well-controlled Phase 3 clinical trials are required by the FDA for approval of a BLA. In certain instances, FDA may condition approval of a BLA on the sponsor’s agreement to conduct additional clinical trials to further assess the biologic’s safety and effectiveness after BLA approval. Such post-approval trials are sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication and further document clinical benefit in the case of drugs approved under Accelerated Approval regulations. Failure to exhibit due diligence with regard to conducting Phase 4 clinical trials could result in withdrawal of approval for products.

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials, among other information, must be submitted at least annually to the FDA, and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators for serious and unexpected suspected adverse events, findings from other studies suggesting a significant risk to humans exposed to the biologic, findings from animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human subjects, and any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA, the IRB, or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. Additionally, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. This group provides authorization for whether or not a trial may move forward at designated intervals based on access to certain data from the trial and may halt the clinical trial if it determines that

26

there is an unacceptable safety risk for subjects or other grounds, such as interim data suggesting a lack of efficacy. We may also suspend or terminate a clinical trial based on evolving business objectives and/or competitive climate. Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug product candidate as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the drug product candidate and, among other things, must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, potency and purity of the final product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the drug product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

BLA and FDA Review Process

Following trial completion, trial data are analyzed to assess safety and efficacy. The results of preclinical studies and clinical trials are then submitted to the FDA as part of a BLA, along with proposed labeling for the product and information about the manufacturing process and facilities that will be used to ensure product quality, results of analytical testing conducted on the chemistry of the drug product candidate, and other relevant information. The BLA is a request for approval to market the biologic for one or more specified indications and must contain proof of safety, purity, potency and efficacy, which is demonstrated by extensive preclinical and clinical testing. The application may include both negative or ambiguous results of preclinical and clinical trials as well as positive findings. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and efficacy of a use of a product, 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 product to the satisfaction of the FDA. FDA approval of a BLA must be obtained before a biologic may be marketed in the United States.

Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, as amended, each BLA must be accompanied by a significant user fee, which is adjusted on an annual basis. PDUFA also imposes an annual prescription drug product program fee. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business.

Once a BLA has been accepted for filing, which occurs, if at all, sixty days after the BLA’s submission, the FDA’s goal is to review BLAs within 10 months of the filing date for standard review or six months of the filing date for priority review, if the application is for a product intended for a serious or life-threatening condition and the product, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. The FDA has substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or decide that the data is insufficient for approval, and may require additional preclinical, clinical or other studies before it accepts the filing. Additionally, the review process is often significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification.

After the BLA submission is accepted for filing, the FDA reviews the BLA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed drug product candidate is safe and effective for its intended use, and whether the drug product candidate is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP to assure and preserve the drug product candidate’s identity, strength, quality, purity and potency. The FDA may refer applications for novel drug product candidates or drug product candidates which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions. The FDA will likely re-analyze the clinical trial data, which could result in extensive discussions between the FDA and us during the review process. The review and evaluation of a BLA by the FDA is extensive and time consuming and may take longer than originally planned to complete, and we may not receive a timely approval, if at all.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA will conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facilities for the new product to determine whether the facilities comply with cGMPs. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. In addition, before approving a BLA, the FDA may also audit data from clinical trials to ensure compliance with GCP requirements. After the FDA evaluates the application, manufacturing process and manufacturing facilities, it may issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application will not be approved in its present form. A Complete Response Letter usually describes all of the specific deficiencies in the BLA identified by the FDA. The Complete Response Letter may require additional clinical data and/or an additional pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial(s), and/or other significant and time-consuming requirements related

27

to clinical trials, preclinical studies or manufacturing. If a Complete Response Letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, withdraw the application or request a hearing. Even if such data and information is submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the BLA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. Data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive, and the FDA may interpret data differently than we interpret the same data.

There is no assurance that the FDA will ultimately approve a product for marketing in the United States, and we may encounter significant difficulties or costs during the review process. If a product receives marketing approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific populations, severities of allergies, and dosages or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling or may condition the approval of the BLA on other changes to the proposed labeling, development of adequate controls and specifications, or a commitment to conduct post-market testing or clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the effects of approved products. For example, the FDA may require Phase 4 testing which involves clinical trials designed to further assess the product’s safety and effectiveness and may require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products that have been commercialized. The FDA may also place other conditions on approvals including the requirement for a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, to assure the safe use of the product. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the BLA must submit a proposed REMS. The FDA will not approve the BLA without an approved REMS, if required. A REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription or dispensing of products. Product approvals may be withdrawn for non-compliance with regulatory standards or based on the results of post-market studies or surveillance programs. Additionally, post-approval, many types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, changing manufacturing processes and adding labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval. Such post-approval requirements can be costly and time-consuming and can affect the potential market and profitability of the product.

Orphan Designation and Exclusivity

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

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

If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug or biologic for the same indication for seven years from the date of such approval, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity on the basis of greater effectiveness or safety or providing a major contribution to patient care or in instances of drug supply issues. Competitors, however, may receive approval of either a different product for the same indication or the same product for a different indication but that could be used off-label in the orphan indication. Orphan drug exclusivity also could block the approval of one of our products for seven years if a competitor obtains approval before we do for the same product, as defined by the FDA, for the same indication we are seeking approval, or if our product is determined to be contained within the scope of the competitor’s product for the same indication or disease. If we pursue marketing approval for an indication broader than the orphan drug designation we have received, we may not be entitled to orphan drug exclusivity. Orphan drug status in the European Union has similar, but not identical, requirements and benefits.

Expedited Development and Review Programs

The FDA has a fast track program that is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new drugs and biological products that meet certain criteria. Specifically, new drugs and biological products are eligible for fast track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and nonclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Fast track designation applies to the combination of the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a new drug or biologic may request the FDA to designate the drug or biologic as a fast track product concurrently with, or at any time after, submission of an IND, and the FDA must determine if the product qualifies for fast track designation within 60 days of receipt of the sponsor’s request. Under the fast track designation, the FDA may consider for

28

review sections of the marketing application on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the application, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the application and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the application.

Any product submitted to the FDA for marketing, including under a fast track program, may be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as priority review and accelerated approval. Any product is eligible for priority review, or review within a six-month timeframe from the date a complete BLA is accepted for filing, if it has the potential to provide a significant improvement in safety and effectiveness compared to available therapies. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new drug or biological product designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review.

Additionally, a product may be eligible for accelerated approval. An investigational drug may obtain accelerated approval if it treats a serious or life-threatening condition and generally provides a meaningful advantage over available therapies and demonstrates an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, or IMM, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on IMM or other clinical benefit. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug or biological product receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical trials and, under the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022, or FDORA, the FDA is now permitted to require, as appropriate, that such trials be underway prior to approval or within a specific time period after the date of approval for a product granted accelerated approval. Under FDORA, the FDA has increased authority for expedited procedures to withdraw approval of a drug or indication approved under accelerated approval if, for example, the confirmatory trial fails to verify the predicted clinical benefit of the product. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product. Fast track designation, priority review and accelerated approval do not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process.

Breakthrough Designation

A product can be designated as a breakthrough therapy if it is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that it may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints. A sponsor may request that a drug product candidate be designated as a breakthrough therapy concurrently with, or at any time after, the submission of an IND, and the FDA must determine if the drug product candidate qualifies for breakthrough therapy designation within 60 days of receipt of the sponsor’s request. If so designated, the FDA shall act to expedite the development and review of the product’s marketing application, including by meeting with the sponsor throughout the product’s development, providing timely advice to the sponsor to ensure that the development program to gather preclinical and clinical data is as efficient as practicable, involving senior managers and experienced review staff in a cross-disciplinary review, assigning a cross-disciplinary project lead for the FDA review team to facilitate an efficient review of the development program and to serve as a scientific liaison between the review team and the sponsor, and taking steps to ensure that the design of the clinical trials is as efficient as practicable.

Accelerated Approval for Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapies

FDA’s regenerative medicine advanced therapy (RMAT) program is intended to facilitate efficient development and expedite review of regenerative medicine advanced therapies, which are intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. A drug sponsor may request that FDA designate a drug as an RMAT concurrently with or at any time after submission of an IND. FDA has 60 calendar days to determine whether the drug meets the criteria, including whether there is preliminary clinical evidence indicating that the drug has the potential to address unmet medical needs for a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. A BLA for an RMAT may be eligible for priority review or accelerated approval through (1) surrogate or intermediate endpoints reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit or (2) reliance upon data obtained from a meaningful number of sites. Benefits of such designation also include early interactions with FDA to discuss any potential surrogate or intermediate endpoint to be used to support accelerated approval. An RMAT that is granted accelerated approval and is subject to post approval requirements may fulfill such requirements through the submission of clinical evidence, clinical studies, patient registries, or other sources of real world evidence, such as electronic health records; the collection of larger confirmatory data sets; or post approval monitoring of all patients treated with such therapy prior to its approval.

29

Pediatric Trials

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, a BLA or supplement to a BLA must contain data to assess the safety and efficacy of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDCA requires that a sponsor who is planning to submit a marketing application for a drug or biological product that includes a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan, or PSP, within sixty days of an end-of-Phase 2 meeting or as may be agreed between the sponsor and FDA. The initial PSP must include an outline of the pediatric study or studies that the sponsor plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, age groups, relevant endpoints and statistical approach, or a justification for not including such detailed information, and any request for a deferral of pediatric assessments or a full or partial waiver of the requirement to provide data from pediatric studies along with supporting information. The FDA and the sponsor must reach agreement on the PSP. A sponsor can submit amendments to an agreed-upon initial PSP at any time if changes to the pediatric plan need to be considered based on data collected from nonclinical studies, early phase clinical trials, and/or other clinical development programs. The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, grant deferrals for submission of data or full or partial waivers.

Post-Marketing Requirements

Following approval of a new product, a manufacturer and the approved product are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, monitoring and recordkeeping activities, reporting to the applicable regulatory authorities of adverse experiences with the product, providing the regulatory authorities with updated safety and efficacy information, product sampling, distribution, and tracking and tracing requirements, and complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include, among others, standards for direct-to-consumer advertising, restrictions on promoting products for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the product’s approved labeling (known as “off-label use”), limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and requirements for promotional activities involving the internet. Although physicians may prescribe legally available drugs and biologics for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such off-label uses.

Modifications or enhancements to the product or its labeling or changes of the site of manufacture are often subject to the approval of the FDA and other regulators, which may or may not be received or may result in a lengthy review process. Prescription drug promotional materials must be submitted to the FDA in conjunction with their first use.

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

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

30

Other Regulatory Matters

Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities following product approval are also subject to regulation by numerous regulatory authorities in addition to the FDA, including, in the United States, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, other divisions of the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS (e.g., the Office of Inspector General, or OIG, and Office for Civil Rights), 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. In the United States, sales, marketing and scientific/educational programs must also comply with federal and state fraud and abuse laws, data privacy and security laws, transparency laws, and pricing and reimbursement requirements in connection with governmental payor programs, among others. The handling of any controlled substances must comply with the U.S. Controlled Substances Act and Controlled Substances Import and Export Act. Products must meet applicable child-resistant packaging requirements under the U.S. Poison Prevention Packaging Act. Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities are also potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

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

The failure to comply with regulatory requirements subjects firms to possible legal or regulatory action. Depending on the circumstances, failure to meet applicable regulatory requirements can result in criminal prosecution, fines or other penalties, injunctions, recall or seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, denial or withdrawal of product approvals, or refusal to allow a firm to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts. In addition, even if a firm complies with FDA and other requirements, new information regarding the safety or efficacy of a product could lead the FDA to modify or withdraw product approval. Prohibitions or restrictions on sales or withdrawal of future products marketed by us could materially affect our business in an adverse way.

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

31

U.S. Patent Term Restoration and Marketing Exclusivity

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of the FDA approval of our drug product candidates, some of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent restoration term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, patent term restoration cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. The patent term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of a BLA plus the time between the submission date of a BLA and the approval of that application, except that the review period is reduced by any time during which the applicant failed to exercise due diligence. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug is eligible for the extension and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. The U.S. PTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. In the future, we may apply for restoration of patent term for our currently owned or licensed patents to add patent life beyond its current expiration date, depending on the expected length of the clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant BLA.

An abbreviated approval pathway for biological products shown to be biosimilar to, or interchangeable with, an FDA-licensed reference biological product was created by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCI Act, which was 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. This amendment to the PHSA attempts to minimize duplicative testing. Biosimilarity, which requires that the biological product be highly similar to the reference product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components and that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency, can be shown through analytical studies, animal studies, and a clinical trial or trials. Interchangeability requires that a biological product be biosimilar to the reference product and that the product can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient and, for products administered multiple times, that the product and the reference product may be switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biological product. However, complexities associated with the larger, and often more complex, structure of biological products as compared to small molecule drugs, as well as the processes by which such products are manufactured, pose significant hurdles to implementation that are still being worked out by the FDA.

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

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of regulatory market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods and patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which attaches to the twelve-year exclusivity period for reference biologics, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric trial in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a trial.

32

Pricing and Reimbursement

United States

Sales of our products will depend, in part, on the extent to which our products, once approved, will be covered and reimbursed by third-party payors, such as government health programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations. These third-party payors are increasingly reducing reimbursements for medical products and services. The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a drug product, including a biologic, typically is separate from the process for setting the price of a drug product or for establishing the reimbursement rate that a payor will pay for the drug product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific drug products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the approved drugs for a particular indication.

In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any drug product candidate that might be approved for sale, we may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the drug product candidate, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable regulatory approvals. Whether or not we conduct such studies, our drug product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective. A third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Third party reimbursement may not be sufficient to enable us to maintain price levels high enough to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development. In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement for new drug products are typically made by CMS, an agency within HHS. CMS decides whether and to what extent a new drug product will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare, and private payors tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree. However, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists among third-party payors and coverage and reimbursement levels for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor. Additionally, one third-party payor’s decision to cover a particular product or service does not ensure that other payors will also provide coverage for the product or service, and the level of coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the coverage determination process will often require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately and can be a time-consuming process, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance.

The containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal and state governments, and the prices of drugs, including biologics, have been a focus in this effort. The U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. In many countries, the prices of drug products are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. In general, the prices of drug products under such systems are substantially lower than in the United States. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for drug products, but monitor and control company profits. Accordingly, in markets outside the United States, the reimbursement for drug products may be reduced compared with the United States. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit our net revenue and results. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for our drug product candidate or a decision by a third-party payor to not cover our drug product candidate could reduce physician usage of the drug product candidate and have a material adverse effect on our sales, results of operations and financial condition.

Outside of the United States, the pricing of pharmaceutical products is subject to governmental control in many countries. For example, 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 approved. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost effectiveness of a particular therapy to currently available therapies or so-called health technology assessments, in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. Other countries may allow companies to fix their own prices for products, but monitor and control product volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. Efforts to control prices and utilization of pharmaceutical products will likely continue as countries attempt to manage healthcare expenditures. Historically, products launched in the European Union do not follow price structures of the United States and generally prices tend to be significantly lower.

33

Other Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements

Healthcare providers, physicians, and third-party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any products for which we obtain marketing approval. Our business operations in the United States and our current and future arrangements with clinical investigators, healthcare providers, consultants, third-party payors and patients may expose us to broadly applicable federal and state fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute any drugs for which we obtain marketing approval. In the United States, these laws include: the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the False Claims Act, and HIPAA.

The Anti-Kickback Statute makes it illegal for any person, including a prescription drug manufacturer (or a party acting on its behalf), to knowingly and willfully solicit, receive, offer or pay any remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, that is intended to induce or reward referrals, including the purchase, recommendation, order or prescription of a particular drug, for which payment may be made under a federal healthcare program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. Violations of this law are punishable by imprisonment, criminal fines, administrative civil money penalties and exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs. In addition, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it. Moreover, the ACA provides that the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act. 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. There are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution.

Although we would not submit claims directly to payors, drug manufacturers can be held liable under the federal civil False Claims Act, which imposes civil penalties, including through civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, against individuals or entities (including manufacturers) for, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented to federal programs (including Medicare and Medicaid) claims for items or services, including drugs, that are false or fraudulent, claims for items or services not provided as claimed, or claims for medically unnecessary items or services. Penalties for a False Claims Act violation include three times the actual damages sustained by the government, plus mandatory civil penalties for each separate false claim, the potential for exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs and, although the federal False Claims Act is a civil statute, conduct that results in a False Claims Act violation may also implicate various federal criminal statutes. The government may deem manufacturers to have “caused” the submission of false or fraudulent claims by, for example, providing inaccurate billing or coding information to customers or promoting a product off- label. Claims which include items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute are false or fraudulent claims for purposes of the False Claims Act. The federal False Claims Act also permits a private individual acting as a “whistleblower” to bring actions on behalf of the federal government alleging violations of the federal False Claims Act and to share in any monetary recovery. Our future marketing and activities relating to the reporting of wholesaler or estimated retail prices for our products, if approved, the reporting of prices used to calculate Medicaid rebate information and other information affecting federal, state and third-party reimbursement for our products, and the sale and marketing of our product candidates, are subject to scrutiny under this law.

The civil monetary penalties statute imposes penalties against any person or entity that, among other things, is determined to have presented or caused to be presented a claim to a federal health program that the person knows or should know is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent.

Additionally, we may be subject to data privacy and security regulations by both the federal government and states in which we conduct our business. For example, HIPAA created new federal criminal statutes that prohibit among other things, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud or to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, any money or property owned by, or under the control or custody of, any healthcare benefit program, including private third party payors, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by trick, scheme or device, a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Like the federal Anti-Kickback Statute a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.

34

HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (“HITECH”), and its implementing regulations, mandates, among other things, the adoption of uniform standards for the electronic exchange of information in common healthcare transactions, as well as standards relating to the privacy and security of individually identifiable health information, which require the adoption of administrative, physical and technical safeguards to protect such information. Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA’s security standards directly applicable to business associates, defined as independent contractors or agents of covered entities, which include certain health care providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses, that create, receive or obtain protected health information in connection with providing a service for or on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also increased the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed against covered entities and business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, certain state laws govern the privacy and security of health information and other personal data in certain circumstances, some of which are more stringent or otherwise different than HIPAA and many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. Failure to comply with these laws, where applicable, can result in the imposition of significant civil and criminal penalties.

Further, the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, or the Sunshine Act, within the ACA, and its implementing regulations, require that certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biological and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) report annually to CMS information related to certain payments or other transfers of value made or distributed to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), certain other licensed health care practitioners and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by the physicians described above and their immediate family members. In addition, many states also govern the reporting of payments or other transfers of value, many of which differ from each other in significant ways, are often not pre-empted, and may have a more prohibitive effect than the Sunshine Act, thus further complicating compliance efforts.

We may become subject to federal government price reporting laws, which would require us to calculate and report complex pricing metrics in an accurate and timely manner to government programs, as well as federal consumer protection and unfair competition laws, which broadly regulate marketplace activities and activities that potentially harm consumers.

Similar federal, state and foreign fraud and abuse laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services. Such laws are generally broad and are enforced by various state agencies and private actions. Also, many states have similar fraud and abuse statutes or regulations that may be broader in scope and may apply regardless of payor, in addition to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs. Some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant federal government compliance guidance, and require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures.

In order to distribute products commercially, we must comply with state laws that require the registration of manufacturers and wholesale distributors of drug and biological products in a state, including, in certain states, manufacturers and distributors who ship products into the state even if such manufacturers or distributors have no place of business within the state. Some states also impose requirements on manufacturers and distributors to establish the pedigree of product in the chain of distribution, including some states that require manufacturers and others to adopt new technology capable of tracking and tracing product as it moves through the distribution chain. Several states have enacted legislation requiring pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to establish marketing compliance programs, file periodic reports with the state, make periodic public disclosures on sales, marketing, pricing, clinical trials and other activities, and/or register their sales representatives, as well as to prohibit pharmacies and other healthcare entities from providing certain physician prescribing data to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for use in sales and marketing, and to prohibit certain other sales and marketing practices. All of our activities are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

35

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 may 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 governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, individual imprisonment, exclusion of drugs from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs. Ensuring business arrangements comply with applicable healthcare laws, as well as responding to possible investigations by government authorities, can be time- and resource- consuming and can divert a company’s attention from the business.

Current and Future Legislation

In the United States and some 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 2010, the ACA was enacted in the United States. The ACA includes measures that have significantly changed, and are expected to continue to significantly change, the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers. Among the provisions of the ACA of greatest importance to the pharmaceutical industry are that the ACA:

36

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted:

In addition, there has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient assistance programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. President Biden has issued multiple executive orders that have sought to reduce prescription drug costs. In February 2023, HHS issued a proposal in response to an October 2022 executive order from President Biden that includes a proposed prescription drug pricing model that will test whether targeted Medicare payment adjustments will sufficiently incentivize manufacturers to complete confirmatory trials for drugs approved through FDA’s accelerated approval pathway. Although a number of these and other proposed measures may require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, and the Biden administration may reverse or otherwise change these measures, both the Biden administration and Congress have indicated that they will continue to seek new legislative measures to control drug costs.

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA includes several provisions that may impact our business to varying degrees, including provisions that reduce the out-of-pocket spending cap for Medicare Part D beneficiaries from $7,050 to $2,000 starting in 2025, thereby effectively eliminating the coverage gap; impose new manufacturer financial liability on certain drugs under Medicare Part D, allow the U.S. government to negotiate Medicare Part B and Part D price caps for certain high-cost drugs and biologics without generic or biosimilar competition; require companies to pay rebates to Medicare for certain drug prices that increase faster than inflation; and delay until January 1, 2032 the implementation of the HSS rebate rule that would have limited the fees that pharmacy benefit managers can charge. Further, under the IRA, orphan drugs are exempted from the Medicare drug price negotiation program, but only if they have one rare disease designation and for which the only approved indication is for that disease or condition. If a product receives multiple rare disease designations or has multiple approved indications, it may not qualify for the orphan drug exemption. The effects of the IRA on our business and the healthcare industry in general is not yet known.

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, and designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Legally mandated price controls on payment amounts by third-party payors or other restrictions could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. This could reduce the ultimate demand for our drugs or put pressure on our drug pricing, which could negatively affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

37

We cannot predict what healthcare reform initiatives may be adopted in the future. Further federal, state and foreign legislative and regulatory developments are likely, and we expect ongoing initiatives to increase pressure on drug pricing. Such reforms could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenues from product candidates and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop product candidates.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

The FCPA prohibits any U.S. individual or business from paying, offering, or authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the United States to comply with accounting provisions requiring the company to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations.

Additional Regulation

In addition to the foregoing, state and federal laws regarding environmental protection and hazardous substances, including the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Resource Conservancy and Recovery Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act, affect our business. These and other laws govern our use, handling and disposal of various biological, chemical and radioactive substances used in, and wastes generated by, our operations. If our operations result in contamination of the environment or expose individuals to hazardous substances, we could be liable for damages and governmental fines. We believe that we are in material compliance with applicable environmental laws and that continued compliance therewith will not have a material adverse effect on our business. We cannot predict, however, how changes in these laws may affect our future operations.

Europe / Rest of World Government Regulation

In addition to regulations in the United States, we may be subject to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions that we may in the future select governing, among other things, clinical trials and any commercial sales and distribution of our products. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval of a product, we would need to obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign countries prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. Certain countries outside of the United States have a similar process that requires the submission of a clinical trial application much like the IND prior to the commencement of human clinical trials. In the EU, for example, a clinical trial application must be submitted to each country’s national health authority and an independent ethics committee, much like the FDA and IRB, respectively. Once the clinical trial application is approved in accordance with a country’s requirements, clinical trial development may proceed. Because biologically sourced raw materials are subject to unique contamination risks, their use may be restricted in some countries.

The requirements and process governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, the clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.

To obtain regulatory approval of an investigational drug or biological product under EU regulatory systems, we must submit an MAA. The application used to file the BLA in the United States is similar to that required in the EU, with the exception of, among other things, country-specific document requirements.

For other countries outside of the EU, such as countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, again, the clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.

If we or our potential collaborators fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.

European Union General Data Protection Regulation

In addition to EU regulations related to the approval and commercialization of our products, we may be subject to the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR. The GDPR imposes stringent requirements for controllers and processors of personal data of persons in the EU, including, for example, more robust disclosures to individuals and a strengthened individual data rights regime, shortened timelines for data breach notifications, limitations on retention of information, increased requirements pertaining to special categories of data, such as health data, and additional obligations when we contract with third-party processors in

38

connection with the processing of the personal data. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data out of the European Union to the United States and other third countries. In addition, the GDPR provides that EU member states may make their own further laws and regulations limiting the processing of personal data, including genetic, biometric or health data.

The GDPR applies extraterritorially, and we may be subject to the GDPR because of our data processing activities that involve the personal data of individuals located in the European Union, such as in connection with our EU clinical trials. Failure to comply with the requirements of the GDPR and the applicable national data protection laws of the EU member states may result in fines of up to €20,000,000 or up to 4% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher, and other administrative penalties. GDPR regulations may impose additional responsibility and liability in relation to the personal data that we process and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms to ensure compliance with the new data protection rules.

Human Capital Resources

As of December 31, 2022, we had 60 employees, 58 of whom were full-time and two who were part-time. Of those, 51 were engaged in research and development activities. All company employees are located in the United States. We do not have any employees that are represented by a labor union or covered under a collective bargaining agreement. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

Our future success depends on our ability to attract, develop and retain key personnel, maintain our culture, and ensure diversity and inclusion in our board, management and broader workforce. Our human resources objectives include, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, retaining, incentivizing and integrating our existing and additional employees. The principal purposes of our equity incentive plans are to attract, retain and motivate selected employees, consultants and directors through the granting of stock-based compensation awards. As these areas directly impact our ability to compete and innovate, they are key focus areas for our board of directors and senior executives. A testament to our strong culture is the strong results from our annual employee survey.

Corporate History and Trademarks

We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware in April 2017 under the name Tycho Therapeutics, Inc. In August 2018, our corporate name was changed to Cabaletta Bio, Inc. Our principal executive offices are located at 2929 Arch Street, Suite 600, Philadelphia, PA 19104 and our telephone number is (267) 759-3100. Our website address is www.cabalettabio.com. We do not incorporate the information on or accessible through our website into this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and you should not consider any information on, or that can be accessed through, our website to be part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We have included our website address in this Annual Report on Form 10-K solely as an inactive textual reference.

We view our operations and measure our business as one reportable segment. All of the Company's tangible assets are held in the United States. Refer to Note 2, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, to our financial statements appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for additional information.

We own or have rights to various trademarks, service marks and trade names that we use in connection with the operation of our business. This Annual Report on Form 10-K may also contain trademarks, service marks and trade names of third parties, which are the property of their respective owners. Our use or display of third parties’ trademarks, service marks, trade names or products in this Annual Report on Form 10-K is not intended to, and does not imply a relationship with, or endorsement or sponsorship by us. Solely for convenience, the trademarks, service marks and trade names referred to in this Annual Report on Form 10-K may appear without the ®, ™ or SM symbols, but the omission of such references is not intended to indicate, in any way, that we will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, our rights or the right of the applicable owner of these trademarks, service marks and trade names.

Available Information

Our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and any amendments to these reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, are available free of charge on our website located at www.cabalettabio.com as soon as reasonably practicable after they are filed with or furnished to the SEC. These reports are also available at the SEC’s Internet website at www.sec.gov.

A copy of our Corporate Governance Guidelines, Code of Conduct and Business Ethics and the charters of the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee are posted on our website, www.cabalettabio.com, under the heading “Investors & Media.”

39

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

Our business involves material and other risks, some of which are summarized and described below. You should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties described below, together with all of the other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" and the condensed financial statements and the related notes. If any of the following risks actually occur, it could harm our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition and future prospects. In such event, the market price of our common stock could decline and you could lose all or part of your investment. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial may also impair our business operations. This Annual Report on Form 10-K also contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in the forward-looking statements as a result of factors that are described below and elsewhere in this Annual Report.

Risks Related to Our Business, Technology and Industry

Risks Related to Clinical Development

We are early in our development efforts. If we are unable to advance our product candidates through clinical development, obtain regulatory approval and ultimately commercialize our product candidates, or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

We are early in our development efforts and we have not yet completed any clinical trials. Our ability to generate product revenues, which we do not expect will occur for many years, if ever, will depend heavily on the successful development and eventual commercialization of one or more of our product candidates. Even if we are able to develop and commercialize a marketable product, we may face challenges generating revenue from product sales. The success of our product candidates will depend on several factors, including the following:

40

If we do not achieve one or more of these factors in a timely manner or at all, we could experience significant delays or be unable to successfully commercialize our product candidates, which would materially harm our business. If we do not receive regulatory approvals for our product candidates, we may not be able to continue our operations.

Cellular therapies, including our engineered chimeric antigen receptor T cell, or CAR T, chimeric autoantibody receptor T cell, or CAAR T, product candidates, represent a novel approach to the treatment of autoimmune diseases, which creates significant challenges for us. Negative perception or increased regulatory scrutiny of any product candidates that we develop could adversely affect our ability to conduct our business or obtain regulatory approvals for such product candidates.

Cellular therapies are a novel approach and negative perception or increased regulatory scrutiny of any product candidates that we develop could adversely affect our ability to conduct our business or obtain regulatory approvals for such product candidates. Cellular therapies remain novel in general, and there are no cellular immunotherapies licensed to date in the United States or the European Union to treat autoimmune diseases or alloimmune responses. CAR T or CAAR T cell therapies for autoimmune or alloimmune diseases may not gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. For example, CAR Ts and other cellular therapies have in some cases caused severe side effects, including death, and their broader use may therefore be limited. Even if CAR T therapies and other cellular therapies are accepted by the public and medical community in the short term, long-term adverse events observed in these therapies may increase negative perception and regulatory scrutiny. Public perception may be influenced by claims that gene therapy, including the insertion of a transgene, is unsafe, and products incorporating gene therapy may not gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. The patient populations targeted by our product candidates are also typically not at risk of near-term death, even if they may suffer life-threatening symptoms, so patients will need to deem the benefits of cell therapy to be worth the risk of unknown potential adverse side effects. Our success will depend upon physicians who specialize in the treatment of autoimmune diseases targeted by our product candidates prescribing treatments that involve the use of our product candidates in lieu of, or in addition to, existing treatments with which they are more familiar and for which greater clinical data may be available. Adverse events in clinical trials of our product candidates or in clinical trials of others developing similar products and the resulting publicity, as well as any other adverse events in the field of cellular therapies, could result in a decrease in demand for any product that we may develop.

We are developing a pipeline of CAR T and CAAR T product candidates that are intended for use in treating individuals with autoimmune diseases. Advancing these novel product candidates creates significant challenges for us, including:

41

In addition, preclinical murine and other animal models may not exist or be adequate for some or all of the B cell-mediated autoimmune diseases we choose to pursue in our programs, and because we are early in the clinical development process, we are unable to predict whether there may be short-term or long-term effects from treatment with any product candidates that we develop. In developing our product candidates, we have not exhaustively explored different options in the method for manufacturing CAR T or CAAR T cells. We may find our existing manufacturing process may be substantially improved with future design or process changes, necessitating further clinical testing, delaying commercial launch of our first products, and causing us to incur additional expenses. For example, while we have used a lentiviral vector in our manufacturing process, we may in the future find that another viral vector or non-viral vector-based process offers advantages. Switching from one lentiviral vector to another or switching from lentiviral to another delivery system would necessitate additional process development and clinical testing, and this may delay the development of existing product candidates.

In addition, we do not know the doses to be evaluated in pivotal trials or, if licensed, commercially. Finding a suitable dose may delay our anticipated clinical development timelines. Our expectations with regard to our scalability and costs of manufacturing may vary significantly as we develop our product candidates and understand these critical factors. We may experience delays in developing a sustainable, reproducible and scalable manufacturing process or transferring that process to commercial partners, which may prevent us from completing our clinical studies or commercializing our product candidates on a timely or profitable basis, if at all.

Moreover, our product candidates may not perform successfully in clinical trials or may be associated with adverse events that distinguish them from the chimeric antigen receptor T, or CAR T, therapies that have previously been licensed. For instance, subjects in our CAAR T clinical trials will be infused with our proposed therapies, and may possess strongly activating soluble antibodies, which, are not present in oncology patients and when they interact with our infused product candidates, could result in potential adverse side effects, such as CRS. Additionally, adverse side effects caused by even one of our CAAR T product candidates could negatively affect our ability to develop future product candidates based on our CABATM platform. Unexpected side effects or clinical outcomes from any of our products candidates would significantly impact our business.

In addition, one of our current product candidates, DSG3/1-CAART, and certain of our future product candidates may require introducing large transgenes into T cells, and lentiviral vectors may have too limited a genome capacity to accomplish this process. We currently use lentiviral vector transduction for transgene delivery. However, lentiviral vectors have a limited genome capacity that restricts the size of the transgene that can be delivered using this vector system. For example, designing a lentiviral vector that will have sufficient capacity to introduce DSG3 CAAR and DSG1 CAAR together into T cells may not be possible. In addition to reducing lentiviral vector titers that may substantially increase the cost of gene transfer, it may be entirely unsuccessful, thus necessitating use of alternative strategies for transfer of these larger transgenes into T cells.

Further, the clinical study requirements of the FDA and other regulatory agencies and the criteria they use to determine the safety, potency and purity of a product candidate are determined according to the type, complexity, novelty and intended use and market of the potential products. The regulatory approval process for novel product candidates such as ours is less clear, and can be more complex and consequently have higher development risk, be more expensive and take longer than for other, better known or extensively studied pharmaceutical or other product candidates. Approvals by the FDA for existing cell therapies treating B cell-mediated diseases, such as Kymriah (Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation) and Yescarta® (Gilead Sciences, Inc.) in oncology indications, may not be indicative of what the FDA may require for approval of our therapies in autoimmune indications. Approvals by any regulatory agency may not be indicative of what any other regulatory agency may require for approval or what such regulatory agencies may require for approval in connection with new product candidates. As we advance our product candidates, we will be required to consult with these regulatory agencies and comply with applicable requirements and guidelines. If we fail to do so, we may be required to delay or discontinue development of such product candidates. These additional processes may result in a review and approval process that is longer than we otherwise would have expected. More restrictive statutory regimes, government regulations or negative public opinion would have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects and may delay or impair the development and commercialization of our product candidates or demand for any products we may develop.

42

In addition, responses by agencies at the federal and state level to negative public perception or ethical concerns may result in new legislation or regulations that could limit our ability to develop or commercialize any product candidates, obtain or maintain regulatory approval or otherwise achieve profitability. The FDA has expressed interest in further regulating biotechnology products, such as cellular therapies. Agencies at both the federal and state level in the United States, as well as the U.S. Congressional committees and other government entities or governing agencies have also expressed interest in further regulating the biotechnology industry. Such action may delay or prevent commercialization of some or all of our product candidates. Adverse developments in clinical trials of cellular therapy products conducted by others may cause the FDA or other oversight bodies to change the requirements for approval of any of our product candidates. These regulatory review agencies and committees and the new requirements or guidelines they promulgate may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional studies or trials, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of our product candidates or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions.

Patients receiving T cell-based immunotherapies, such as our product candidates, may experience serious adverse events, including neurotoxicity, CRS and killing of cells other than the intended B cells that express the autoantibodies. If our product candidates are revealed to have high and unacceptable severity and/or prevalence of side effects or unexpected characteristics, their clinical development, regulatory approval, and commercial potential will be negatively impacted, which will significantly harm our business, financial condition and prospects.

Our product candidates are CAR T or CAAR T cell-based immunotherapies. In other similarly designed cellular immunotherapies to treat cancer, there have been life threatening events related to severe neurotoxicity and CRS requiring intense medical intervention, such as intubation or medications to support blood pressure, and in several cases, resulted in death. Severe neurotoxicity is a condition that is currently defined clinically by cerebral edema, confusion, drowsiness, speech impairment, tremors, seizures or other central nervous system side effects, when such side effects are serious enough to lead to intensive care. CRS is a condition that is currently defined clinically by certain symptoms related to the release of cytokines, which can include fever, chills and low blood pressure, when such side effects are serious enough to lead to intensive care with mechanical ventilation or significant medications to support blood pressure. There is a possibility that our product candidates could have similarly life threatening serious adverse side effects, such as neurotoxicity and CRS.

Our product candidates may have serious and potentially fatal consequences due to the targeting of cells within the body due to unexpected protein interactions with the CAR or CAAR. Although we have completed multiple preclinical studies designed to screen for toxicity caused by unintended off-target recognition by the cell binding domain of the DSG3 CAAR and MuSK CAAR and intend to screen future CAAR candidates not yet tested in patients through preclinical studies, our product candidates may still recognize and react with one or more proteins unrelated to the intended surface immunoglobin target protein to which it is designed to link. If unexpected binding occurs in normal tissue, our product candidates may target and kill the normal tissue in a patient, leading to serious and potentially fatal adverse events, undesirable side effects, toxicities or unexpected characteristics. Detection of any unexpected targeting may halt or delay any ongoing clinical trials for our product candidates and prevent or delay regulatory approval. While we have developed a preclinical screening process to identify cross-reactivity of our product candidates, we cannot be certain that this process will identify all potential tissue that our product candidates may target. For example, a membrane protein array with DSG3-CAART yielded one weak signal against a protein that is designed to bind to glycoproteins and which was detected in both the test and control conditions. Further analysis of this protein in confirmatory cell-based assays repeatedly demonstrated that DSG3-CAART does not recognize nor activate against this protein. We performed similar preclinical studies for the MuSK CAAR and did not observe any confirmed off target activity for MuSK-CAART. However, this further analysis may prove to be inaccurate. Any unexpected targeting that impacts patient safety could materially impact our ability to advance our product candidates into clinical trials or to proceed to marketing approval and commercialization. Furthermore, in the event subjects are retreated, they may respond differently than other subjects given the same dose, and may not tolerate the dose or develop safety concerns.

Results of our studies could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or unexpected characteristics. Undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA. The FDA has requested and we have agreed to provide data on the subjects dosed in Part A of our DesCAARTesTM trial prior to dosing subjects in Part B. The FDA has communicated that the dosing of patients in Part B1 is not dependent on the review of Part A data and that they will provide feedback, if any, in a timely manner. In some cases, side effects such as neurotoxicity or CRS have resulted in clinical holds of ongoing clinical trials and/or discontinuation of the development of the product candidate. Given that the autoimmune and alloimmune diseases we are seeking to treat are, in some cases, less serious than the later stage cancers being treated with other immunotherapy products, we believe the FDA and other regulatory authorities likely will apply a different benefit-risk assessment thresholds such that even if our product candidate demonstrated a similar safety profile as current CAR T therapies, the FDA may ultimately determine that the harmful side effects outweigh the benefits and require us to cease clinical trials or deny approval of our product candidates. We believe tolerance for adverse events in the patient population being pursued with CAAR T cell therapies will be lower than it is in oncology, and the risks of negative impact from these toxicities may therefore be higher for us than for CAR T programs in oncology.

43

Furthermore, treatment-related side effects could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the studies or result in potential product liability claims. In addition, these side effects may not be appropriately recognized or managed by the treating medical staff, as toxicities resulting from T cell-based immunotherapies are not normally encountered in routine medical care. Medical personnel may need additional training regarding T cell-based immunotherapy product candidates to understand their side effects. Inadequate training in recognizing or failure to effectively manage the potential side effects of T cell-based immunotherapy product candidates could result in patient deaths. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

In addition to side effects caused by our product candidates, any preconditioning, administration process or related procedures, which we evaluate from time to time as part of our process improvement and optimization efforts, may also cause adverse side effects. For example, prolonged or persistent cytopenias and severe neurotoxicity has been noted to be associated with the use of certain lymphodepleting regimens and CAR T therapies. While we initiated the DesCAARTesTM trial without a preconditioning regimen, we have implemented a cohort where a preconditioning regimen with a lymphodepleting agent and an immunomodulatory agent will be administered.

We have implemented a preconditioning regimen in the DesCAARTesTM trial where subjects are pre-treated with IVIg and cyclophosphamide prior to DSG3-CAART infusion, and included a planned dosing cohort in the MusCAARTesTM trial where subjects are pre-treated with cyclophosphamide prior to MuSK-CAART infusion, and we may in the future use a preconditioning regimen for our other CAR T or CAAR T cell product candidates, which may increase the risk of adverse side effects and impact our ability to accurately assess the efficacy of our product candidates.

In oncology patients receiving CAR T cell therapy, a lymphodepleting preconditioning regimen is typically used to condition the patient prior to CAR T cell infusion in order to improve tumor immunogenicity and to promote the expansion of the infused CAR T cells. Together, these effects have been shown to enhance the clinical activity of CAR T cells in oncology patients. These regimens often include cyclophosphamide and fludarabine and are usually administered within the week prior to infusion of CAR T cells. Serious adverse events have been observed in some patients following CAR T cell infusion, and these include infection, cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity. The lymphodepleting and immunomodulatory preconditioning regimen may contribute to the occurrence and severity of these adverse events due to its role in inducing lymphopenia, or low levels of lymphocytes in the blood, and regulating the activation and effector functions of other immune cells and antibodies, and enhanced CAR T cell activity.

Lymphodepleting preconditioning may not be required in all oncology settings for CAR T cell activity. A clinical trial in multiple myeloma patients published in 2019 in The Journal of Clinical Investigation showed similar clinical activity of CAR T cell infusions in patients with or without a lymphodepleting preconditioning regimen. Furthermore, the requirement for lymphodepleting preconditioning for potentiating engineered T cell therapy outside of oncology has not been well established. Specifically, the effect on tumor immunogenicity is not relevant in settings outside oncology, and therefore the contribution of this aspect to the potential enhancing effect of preconditioning would not apply.

In addition, a lymphodepleting regimen may eliminate pathogenic B cells targeted by our CAAR T cell product candidates. As a result, any lymphodepleting regimen for preconditioning that we use may delay or otherwise adversely affect our ability to use DSG3 or MuSK autoantibody titers, a standard clinical assay, to assess the activity of DSG3-CAART and MuSK-CAART, respectively. An inability to use DSG3 or MuSK autoantibody levels to demonstrate the specific activity of our CAAR T cell product candidates may require us to rely on the subjective measurement of blister formation in patients in the DesCAARTesTM trial or muscle weakness in the MusCAARTesTM trial, which can be a less sensitive and accurate measurement of CAAR T cell activity. This therefore could delay a signal of potential biologic activity attributable to CAAR and therefore may slow clinical development. Based on emerging clinical and translational data, in the setting of autoimmune patients, we believe the inclusion of such a regimen in the DesCAARTesTM trial and MusCAARTesTM trial is justified to further evaluate the DSG3-CAART and MuSK-CAART platforms. We will continue to evaluate emerging data from the DesCAARTesTM trial on an ongoing basis, as well as other relevant clinical trials in autoimmune disease, and may make additional modifications to the DesCAARTesTM trial or MusCAARTesTM trial, as appropriate.

In addition to lymphodepleting preconditioning, other preconditioning regimens with immunomodulatory effects may be considered to prepare the body for CAR T or CAAR T infusion. For example, if autoantibody is found to reduce or inhibit function of CAAR T in the body, then pretreatment of patients with antibody reducing therapies, such as FcRN inhibitors, IVIg, plasmapheresis, or treatment of post rituximab patients may be considered. Some of these types of preconditioning are standard of care for this autoimmune population and therefore are already considered to have a beneficial risk profile in this patient population. These other preconditioning regimens may cause serious adverse events, including hypotension, thromboembolism, and opportunistic infections.

While we initiated the DesCAARTesTM trial without a preconditioning regimen, we have now implemented a cohort where a preconditioning regimen with a lymphodepleting agent and an immunomodulatory agent will be administered. Our clinical patients may experience increased or more severe adverse effects specifically related to the preconditioning regimen, such as severe allergic reactions, difficulty breathing, severe headaches, serious infections, low blood counts, inflammation of the colon with bleeding, bladder irritation, blood clots, development of certain cancers, damage to the heart, lung or kidneys, and even death. These undesirable side effects, whether associated with the preconditioning regimen alone or in combination with our CAAR T cell product candidates, could cause

44

delays in patient enrollment in our clinical trials, could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a change to our clinical trial design, a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA. Any of the foregoing may increase the duration and expense of the clinical development of our product candidates or limit market acceptance of such product candidates, if approved, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

Our business is highly dependent on the success of our initial product candidates targeting B cell-mediated autoimmune diseases, particularly CABA-201, DSG3-CAART and MuSK-CAART. All of our product candidates will require significant additional preclinical and/or clinical development before we can seek regulatory approval for and launch a product commercially.

Our business and future success depend on our ability to obtain regulatory approval of, and then successfully launch and commercialize our initial product candidates targeting B cell-mediated autoimmune diseases, including CABA-201, DSG3-CAART, MuSK-CAART, DSG3/1-CAART, PLA2R-CAART and others that may be selected from preclinical and discovery programs. Our product candidates are in the early stages of development and will require additional preclinical studies, clinical trials, regulatory review and licensure, substantial investment, access to sufficient commercial manufacturing capacity and significant marketing efforts before we can generate any revenue from product sales. There is no guarantee that we will be able to advance our product candidates through clinical development or obtain marketing approval for any of our product candidates. The process for obtaining marketing approval for any product candidate is very long and risky and there will be significant challenges for us to address in order to obtain marketing approval as planned, if at all.

However, the initial clinical results we have observed may not be predictive of results of subsequent cohorts in this clinical trial, or of any future clinical trials. Because DSG3-CAART and MuSK-CAART are the first and second product candidates that we are testing in the clinic, we may experience preliminary complications surrounding trial design, protocol establishment and execution, establishing trial protocols, patient recruitment and enrollment, quality and supply of clinical doses, or safety issues. For example, we did not use pre-infusion lymphodepletion or other preconditioning regimens in the initial dose escalation cohorts of our Phase 1 trial. However, based on emerging clinical and translational data, we have now implemented a cohort where a preconditioning regimen with a lymphodepleting agent and an immunomodulatory agent is administered in the DesCAARTesTM trial, and we continue to evaluate whether the use of a lymphodepleting or other preconditioning regimen is necessary for our other product candidates to be successful, and if we determine that it is, it could result in delays in clinical development and will expose patients to the associated risks.

Additionally, a failure of our clinical trials of DSG3-CAART or MuSK-CAART could influence physicians’ and regulators’ opinions with regard to the viability of our CABATM platform more broadly, particularly if treatment-related side effects are observed. The occurrence of any of these risks could significantly harm our development plans and business prospects. If treatment-related side effects are observed with the administration of DSG3-CAART or MuSK-CAART, or if they are viewed as less safe, potent or pure than other therapies, our ability to develop other CAAR T cell therapies may be significantly harmed.

We have never successfully completed any clinical trials, and we may be unable to do so for any product candidates we develop.

We have not yet demonstrated our ability to successfully complete any clinical trials, including large-scale, pivotal clinical trials, obtain regulatory approvals, manufacture a commercial scale product, or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful commercialization. Although our key employees have significant experience in leading clinical development programs, our experience conducting clinical trials with our product candidates is limited. We may not be able to file INDs for any of our other product candidates on the timelines we expect, if at all. For example, we cannot be certain that the IND-enabling studies for our future product candidates will be completed in a timely manner or be successful or that the manufacturing process will be validated in a timely manner. Even if we submit an IND for a future product candidate, the FDA may not clear the IND and allow us to begin clinical trials in a timely manner or at all. For example, we may not be able to obtain FDA clearance of our IND for CABA-201 during the first half of 2023. The timing of submissions on future product candidates will be dependent on further preclinical and manufacturing success. Moreover, we cannot be sure that submission of an IND will result in the FDA allowing further clinical trials to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that require us to suspend or terminate clinical trials. Commencing each of these clinical trials is subject to finalizing the trial design based on discussions with the FDA and other regulatory authorities. Any guidance we receive from the FDA or other regulatory authorities is subject to change. These regulatory authorities could change their position, including, on the acceptability of our trial designs or the clinical endpoints selected, which may require us to complete additional clinical trials or impose stricter approval conditions than we currently expect.

If we are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of our product candidates beyond those that we currently contemplate, if we are unable to successfully complete clinical trials of our product candidates or other testing, if the results of these trials or tests are not positive or are only modestly positive or if there are safety concerns, we may:

45

If product liability lawsuits are brought against us, we may incur substantial liabilities and may be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates.

We face an inherent risk of product liability as a result of the clinical testing of our product candidates and will face an even greater risk if we commercialize any products. For example, we may be sued if our product candidates cause or are perceived to cause injury or are found to be otherwise unsuitable during clinical testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties. Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates. Even successful defense would require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

Since we have not yet commenced marketing of any products, we do not yet hold product liability insurance for commercialization of our product candidates. Our inability to obtain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost to protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of products we develop, alone or with corporate collaborators. Our insurance policies may also have various exclusions, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. Assuming we obtained clinical trial insurance for our clinical trials, we may have to pay amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient capital to pay such amounts. Even if our agreements with any future corporate collaborators entitle us to indemnification against losses, such indemnification may not be available or adequate should any claim arise.

Risks Related to the Industry

Our product candidates may cause undesirable side effects or have other properties that could halt their clinical development, prevent their regulatory approval, limit their commercial potential or result in significant negative consequences.

Undesirable or unacceptable side effects caused by our product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA. Further, clinical trials by their nature utilize a sample of the potential patient population. With a limited number of subjects and limited duration of exposure, rare and severe side effects of our product candidates may only be uncovered with a significantly larger number of patients exposed to the drug. Undesirable side effects could also result in an expansion in the size of our clinical trials, increasing the expected costs and timeline of our clinical trials. Additionally, results of our clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or unexpected characteristics.

46

Licensed CAR T cell therapies and those under development have shown frequent rates of CRS and neurotoxicity, and adverse events have resulted in the death of patients. Similar adverse events could occur during treatment with our current or future CAR T or CAAR T cell product candidates. For example, activation of CAAR T cells by patient autoantibodies or alloantibodies could stimulate CRS. When CAAR T cells are infused and the CAAR binds to soluble antibodies in the blood or tissues of treated patients, these soluble antibodies may cause the CAAR T cells to proliferate, resulting in an activation of the immune system that is too high, leading to CRS. Further, it is possible that patients will exhibit acute rejection of the CAAR T cells because of preexisting immunity to the antigen within the CAAR. This could render our product candidates ineffective.

If unacceptable toxicities or health risks, including risks inferred from other unrelated immunotherapy trials, arise in the development of our product candidates, we could suspend or terminate our trials or the FDA, the Data Safety Monitoring Board, or DSMB, or local regulatory authorities such as institutional review boards, or IRBs, could recommend or order us to cease clinical trials. Regulatory authorities, such as the FDA, could also deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. Treatment-related side effects could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled subjects to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. In addition, these side effects may not be appropriately recognized or managed by the treating medical staff, as toxicities resulting from T cell therapy are not normally encountered in the general patient population and by medical personnel. We expect to have to train medical personnel using CAR T or CAAR T cell product candidates to understand the side effect profile of our product candidates for both our preclinical studies and clinical trials and upon any commercialization of any of our product candidates, if licensed. Inadequate training in recognizing or managing the potential side effects of our product candidates could result in patient deaths. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Our preclinical studies and clinical trials may fail to demonstrate the safety, potency and purity of any of our product candidates, which would prevent or delay regulatory approval and commercialization.

Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of any of our product candidates, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive preclinical testing and clinical trials that our product candidates are safe, potent and pure for use in each target indication. Clinical trials are expensive and can take many years to complete, and their outcomes are inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. The results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials of our product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials, including in any post-approval studies of our product candidates. In addition, initial success in any clinical trials may not be indicative of results obtained when such trials are completed. There is typically an extremely high rate of attrition from the failure of product candidates proceeding through clinical trials. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety, potency and purity profile despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials.

A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of potency or efficacy, insufficient durability of potency or efficacy or unacceptable safety issues, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials, and we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks. These setbacks have been caused by, among other things, preclinical and other nonclinical findings made while clinical trials were underway, or safety or efficacy observations made in preclinical studies and clinical trials, including previously unreported adverse events. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses and many companies that believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials nonetheless failed to obtain FDA or EMA approval. Most product candidates that commence clinical trials are never approved as products.

Any preclinical studies or clinical trials that we may conduct may not demonstrate the safety, potency and purity necessary to obtain regulatory approval to market our product candidates. If the results of our ongoing or future preclinical studies and clinical trials are inconclusive with respect to evaluations of efficacy, the safety, potency and purity of our product candidates, if we do not meet the clinical endpoints with statistical and clinically meaningful significance, or if there are safety concerns associated with our product candidates, we may be prevented or delayed in obtaining marketing approval for such product candidates. In some instances, there can be significant variability in evaluations of efficacy, safety, potency or purity results between different preclinical studies and clinical trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial procedures set forth in protocols, differences in the size and type of the patient populations, changes in and adherence to the clinical trial protocols and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants. For example, because our CAAR T cell product candidates only target approximately 0.01% to 1% of the B cells in a patient, they may not engage enough of the target to achieve adequate engraftment necessary for elimination of all pathogenic B cells. Insufficient safety or potency in clinical trials may delay product development to enable time to modify the product candidate for next generation approaches or make manufacturing changes or may lead us to discontinue development of the product candidate.

Additionally, our ongoing clinical trials utilize, and our planned trials may utilize, an “open-label” trial design. An “open-label” clinical trial is one where both the patient and investigator know whether the patient is receiving the investigational product candidate or either an active drug or placebo. Most typically, open-label clinical trials test only the investigational product candidate and sometimes may do so at different dose levels. Open-label clinical trials are subject to various limitations that may exaggerate any therapeutic effect as patients in open-label clinical trials are aware when they are receiving treatment. Open-label clinical trials may be subject to a “patient bias” where patients perceive their symptoms to have improved merely due to their awareness of receiving an experimental treatment. In addition, open-label clinical trials may be subject to an “investigator bias” where those assessing and reviewing the physiological outcomes of the clinical trials are aware of which patients have received treatment and may interpret the information of the treated group more favorably given this knowledge. The results from an open-label trial may not be predictive of future clinical trial results with any

47

of our product candidates for which we include an open-label clinical trial when studied in a controlled environment with a placebo or active control.

In addition, we cannot guarantee that the FDA will interpret the results of any of our ongoing or planned clinical trials as we do, and more trials could be required before we submit our product candidates for approval. To the extent that the results of the trials are not satisfactory to the FDA to support a marketing application, approval of our product candidates may be significantly delayed, or we may be required to expend significant additional resources, which may not be available to us, to conduct additional trials in support of potential approval of our product candidates.

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

Our DesCAARTesTM trial and our MusCAARTesTM trial are both designed as open-label trials. From time to time, we may publicly disclose interim, preliminary or topline data from our preclinical studies and clinical trials, including safety data and evaluations of efficacy, which will be based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change following our receipt of additional data or a more comprehensive review of the data related to the particular study or trial. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. For example, we have disclosed clinical and translational data from the first four cohorts in the DesCAARTesTM trial where we reported no DLTs, serious adverse events or clinically relevant adverse events, within six months of DSG3-CAART infusion. Additionally, we have disclosed that no DLTs were observed through cohort A5, and that no clear trends in antibody levels or disease activity reduction were observed through cohort A4, though one subject in cohort A4 had no disease activity by three months post-infusion while reducing steroid usage during that period, an antibody titer that dropped more than 20% by three months post-infusion, and was the only patient in the first four cohorts that had detectable DSG3-CAART persistence at the three month time point following initial DSG3-CAART infusion. DSG3-CAART persistence through day 29 in cohort A5 was similar to that observed in cohort A4 and through up to six months post CAART infusion, no clear pattern in antibody levels and disease activity was observed in the first three subjects at the cohort A5 dose. However, the trial is in its early stages and additional data from these initial cohorts, data from subsequent patients and data from patients at higher dosing levels or different dosing regimens, such as our combination sub-study, may not be positive with respect to safety, target engagement or evidence of early signs of biologic activity.

As a result, the topline results that we report may differ from future results of the same studies, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Topline data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. As a result, topline data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. From time to time, we may also disclose interim data from planned interim analyses in our clinical trials. Interim data from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available. Adverse differences between preliminary or interim data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects. Further, disclosure of interim data by us or our competitors, or by patients or caregivers who are aware that a patient is receiving investigational product, due to the open-label design of the trial, could result in volatility in the price of our common stock.

Regulatory agencies, including the FDA, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the value of the particular program, the approvability or commercialization of the particular product candidate or product and our company in general.

If the interim, topline or preliminary data that we report differ from actual results, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for, and commercialize, our product candidates may be harmed, which could harm our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition.

The increasing use of social media platforms presents new risks and challenges.

Social media is increasingly being used to communicate about our clinical development programs and the diseases our product candidates are being developed to treat. We intend to utilize appropriate social media in connection with communicating about our development programs. Social media practices in the biopharmaceutical industry continue to evolve and regulations relating to such use are not always clear. This evolution creates uncertainty and risk of noncompliance with regulations applicable to our business. For example, patients may use social media channels to report an alleged adverse event during a clinical trial. When such disclosures occur, there is a risk that we fail to monitor and comply with applicable adverse event reporting obligations, or we may not be able to defend our business or the public’s legitimate interests in the face of the political and market pressures generated by social media due to restrictions on what we may say about our investigational products. There is also a risk of inappropriate disclosure of sensitive information or negative or inaccurate posts or comments about us on any social networking website, or a risk that a post on a social

48

networking website by any of our employees may be construed as inappropriate promotion. If any of these events were to occur or we otherwise fail to comply with applicable regulations, we could incur liability, face regulatory actions, or incur other harm to our business.

We may encounter substantial delays in our clinical trials or may not be able to conduct our trials on the timelines we expect or at all.

Clinical testing is expensive, time consuming and subject to uncertainty. We cannot guarantee that any clinical trials will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. Even if these trials begin as planned, issues may arise that could suspend or terminate such clinical trials. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing, and our ongoing and future clinical trials may not be successful. Events that may prevent successful or timely completion of clinical development include:

49

Any inability to successfully complete preclinical and clinical development could result in additional costs to us or impair our ability to generate revenue. If we make manufacturing or formulation changes to our product candidates, we may be required to, or we may elect to, conduct additional trials to bridge our modified product candidates to earlier versions. Clinical trial delays could also shorten any periods during which our product candidates and products, if licensed, have patent protection and may allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do, which could impair our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and may harm our business and results of operations.

We could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, the FDA or other regulatory authority, or if the IRBs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted suspend or terminate the participation of their clinical investigators and sites subject to their review. Such authorities may suspend or terminate a clinical trial due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a product candidate, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial.

Delays in the initiation, conduct or completion of any clinical trial of our product candidates will increase our costs, slow down our product candidate development and approval process and delay or potentially jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates. In the event we identify any additional product candidates to pursue, we cannot be sure that submission of an IND will result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to begin in a timely manner, if at all.

In addition, from time to time, we may publicly announce the expected timing of various scientific, clinical, regulatory, manufacturing and other product development milestones. These milestones may include the commencement, completion or development of data from our preclinical studies and clinical trials or the submission of regulatory filings, such as an IND. All of these milestones are, and will be, based on a variety of assumptions. If any of the foregoing events impact our ability to meet the publicly announced timing of our milestones, we may experience adverse effects on our business, financial condition and prospects and the price of our common stock could decline.

Monitoring safety of patients receiving our product candidates will be challenging, which could adversely affect our ability to obtain regulatory approval and commercialize our product candidates.

For our clinical trials of CABA-201, DSG3-CAART, MuSK-CAART and our other product candidates, we expect to continue to contract with Penn and/or other academic medical centers and hospitals experienced in the assessment and management of toxicities arising during clinical trials. In the future, we may also contract with non-academic medical centers and hospitals with similar capabilities. Nonetheless, these centers and hospitals may have difficulty observing patients, including due to failure by patients to comply with post-clinical trial follow-up programs, and treating toxicities, which may be more challenging due to personnel changes, inexperience, shift changes, house staff coverage or related issues. This could lead to more severe or prolonged toxicities or even patient deaths, which could result in us or the FDA delaying, suspending or terminating one or more of our clinical trials, and which could jeopardize regulatory approval. We also expect the centers using CABA-201, DSG3-CAART, MuSK-CAART and our other product candidates, if licensed, on a commercial basis could have similar difficulty in managing adverse events. Medicines used at centers to help manage adverse side effects of CABA-201, DSG3-CAART, MuSK-CAART and our other product candidates may not adequately control the side effects and/or may have a detrimental impact on the efficacy of the treatment.

50

If we encounter difficulties enrolling patients in our clinical trials, our clinical development activities could be delayed or otherwise adversely affected.

We may experience difficulties in patient enrollment in our clinical trials for a variety of reasons. The timely completion of clinical trials in accordance with their protocols depends, among other things, on our ability to enroll a sufficient number of patients who remain in the trial until its conclusion. The enrollment of patients depends on many factors, including:

In addition, our clinical trials will compete with other clinical trials for product candidates that are in the same therapeutic areas as our product candidates, and this competition will reduce the number and types of patients available to us because some patients who might have opted to enroll in our trials may instead opt to enroll in a trial being conducted by one of our competitors. Since the number of qualified clinical investigators is limited, some of our clinical trial sites may also be used by some of our competitors, which may reduce the number of patients who are available for our clinical trials in that clinical trial site.

Moreover, because our product candidates represent a departure from more commonly used methods for B cell-mediated autoimmune disease treatment, potential patients and their doctors may be inclined to use conventional therapies, such as corticosteroids or systemic immunosuppressive medications, rather than enroll patients in our clinical trial.

Delays in patient enrollment may result in increased costs or may affect the timing or outcome of our ongoing and planned clinical trials, which could prevent completion of these trials and adversely affect our ability to advance the development of our product candidates.

Our DesCAARTesTM trial, our MusCAARTesTM trial and any additional expected Phase 1 clinical trials for each of our product candidates will be pilot dose escalation studies with a limited number of patients. The activity and toxicity data from these clinical trials of our product candidates may differ from future results of Phase 2 and/or Phase 3 clinical trials that enroll a larger number of patients.

Since the number of patients that we plan to dose in our DesCAARTesTM trial and our MusCAARTesTM trial is small, and the number of patients in clinical trials for any future product candidates may be small, the results from such clinical trials, once completed, may be less reliable than results achieved in larger clinical trials, which may hinder our efforts to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates. In both our DesCAARTesTM trial and our MusCAARTesTM trial, we plan to evaluate the toxicity profile of our

51

product candidates and establish the recommended dose for the next clinical trial. The preliminary results of clinical trials with smaller sample sizes, such as our DesCAARTesTM trial and our MusCAARTesTM trial, as well as any clinical trials for future product candidates, can be disproportionately influenced by various biases associated with the conduct of small clinical trials, such as the potential failure of the smaller sample size to accurately depict the features of the broader patient population, which limits the ability to generalize the results across a broader community, thus making the clinical trial results less reliable than clinical trials with a larger number of patients. As a result, there may be less certainty that such product candidates would achieve a statistically significant effect in any future clinical trials. If we conduct any future clinical trials of DSG3-CAART or MuSK-CAART, we may not achieve a statistically significant result or the same level of statistical significance, if any, that we might have anticipated based on the results observed in our DesCAARTesTM trial and our MusCAARTesTM trial, respectively.

Risks Related to Sales, Marketing and Competition

The market opportunities for our product candidates may be limited to those patients who are ineligible for or have failed prior treatments and may be small.

Our projections of both the number of people who have the B cell-mediated autoimmune diseases we are targeting, as well as the subset of people with these diseases in a position to receive second or later lines of therapy and who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates, are based on our beliefs and estimates. These estimates have been derived from a variety of sources, including scientific literature, surveys of clinics, patient foundations, or market research and may prove to be incorrect. Further, new studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these B cell-mediated autoimmune diseases. The number of patients may turn out to be lower than expected. Additionally, the potentially addressable patient population for our product candidates may be limited or may not be amenable to treatment with our product candidates. For instance, we expect DSG3-CAART to initially target a small patient population that suffers from mPV. Furthermore, patients for whom a preconditioning regimen is contraindicated, or is not acceptable to the patient, may not be eligible for treatment with the product candidate, further reducing the potential target population. Even if we obtain significant market share for our product candidates, because the potential target populations are small, we may never achieve profitability without obtaining regulatory approval for additional indications.

We face significant competition from other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, and our operating results will suffer if we fail to compete effectively.

The biopharmaceutical and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong focus on intellectual property. We face competition from many different players, including large and specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic research organizations and governmental agencies. Any therapeutic candidates we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with the existing standard of care as well as novel therapies that may gain regulatory approval in the future. Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial, technical and other resources, such as larger research and development staff and experienced marketing and manufacturing organizations and well-established sales forces. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large, established companies. Mergers and acquisitions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated in our competitors. We believe we are the first and only company developing CAAR T drug candidates, and one of only a few developing CAR T drug candidates, for the treatment of B cell-mediated autoimmune diseases. However, despite the significant differences in discovery, development and target populations between oncology and autoimmune targets, we recognize that companies with an investment and expertise in CAR T cell development for oncology indications could attempt to leverage their expertise into B cell-mediated autoimmune disease affected populations. Competition may increase further as a result of advances in the commercial applicability of technologies and greater availability of capital for investment in these industries. Our competitors, either alone or with collaborative partners, may succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing on an exclusive basis drug or biologic products that are more effective, safer, more easily commercialized or less costly than our product candidates or may develop proprietary technologies or secure patent protection that we may need for the development of our technologies and products.

Specifically, while rituximab is the first drug for the treatment of PV, the target indication for DSG3-CAART to have received regulatory approval in the United States in over 60 years, we are aware that multiple biopharmaceutical companies have therapies in clinical development. We are also aware of other biopharmaceutical companies developing therapies for muscle-specific kinase myasthenia gravis, or MuSK MG, and PLA2R-associated membranous nephropathy, or PLA2R MN. While we do not expect these product candidates to be directly competitive to our product candidates, even if we obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates, the availability and price of these other products could limit the demand and the price we are able to charge for our product candidates. We may not be able to implement our business plan if the acceptance of our product candidates is inhibited by price competition or the reluctance of physicians to switch from existing methods of treatment to our product candidates, or if physicians switch to other new drug or biologic products or choose to reserve our product candidates for use in limited circumstances.

52

Even if we obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates, the products may not gain the market acceptance among physicians, patients, hospitals, treatment centers and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.

The use of engineered T cells as a potential treatment for B cell-mediated autoimmune diseases is a recent development and may not become broadly accepted by physicians, patients, hospitals, treatment centers and others in the medical community. We expect physicians to be particularly influential and we may not be able to convince them to use our product candidates for many reasons. Additional factors will influence whether our product candidates are accepted in the market, including:

The product candidates we plan to develop and commercialize are premised on offering a potential cure for B cell-mediated autoimmune diseases, which may result in a high degree of uncertainty related to pricing and long-term demand for our product. Our target patient populations are relatively small. Because of this pricing and demand for our product candidates, if licensed, may not be adequate to support an extended period of commercial viability, which could adversely affect our continued ability to successfully produce and market our product or any follow-on products.

In addition, if our product candidates are licensed but fail to achieve market acceptance among physicians, patients, hospitals, treatment centers or others in the medical community, we will not be able to generate significant revenue. Even if our products achieve market acceptance, we may not be able to maintain that market acceptance over time if new products or technologies are introduced that are more favorably received than our products, are more cost effective or render our products obsolete.

Risks Related to Business Development

We may not be successful in our efforts to identify additional product candidates. Due to our limited resources and access to capital, we must prioritize development of certain product candidates, which may prove to be wrong and may adversely affect our business.

Although we intend to explore other therapeutic opportunities, in addition to the product candidates that we are currently developing, we may fail to identify viable new product candidates for clinical development for a number of reasons. If we fail to identify additional potential product candidates, our business could be materially harmed.

53

Research programs to pursue the development of our existing and planned product candidates for additional indications and to identify new product candidates and disease targets require substantial technical, financial and human resources whether or not they are ultimately successful. Our research programs may initially show promise in identifying potential indications and/or product candidates, yet fail to yield results for clinical development for a number of reasons, including:

Because we have limited financial and human resources, we intend to initially focus on research programs and product candidates for a limited set of indications. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential or a greater likelihood of success. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities.

Accordingly, there can be no assurance that we will ever be able to identify additional therapeutic opportunities for our product candidates or to develop suitable potential product candidates through internal research programs, which could materially adversely affect our future growth and prospects. We may focus our efforts and resources on potential product candidates or other potential programs that ultimately prove to be unsuccessful.

If we fail to develop additional product candidates, our commercial opportunity will be limited.

One of our core strategies is to pursue clinical development of additional product candidates beyond CABA-201, DSG3-CAART, MuSK-CAART, DSG3/1-CAART, and PLA2R-CAART. Developing, obtaining regulatory approval and commercializing additional product candidates will require substantial additional funding and is prone to the risks of failure inherent in medical product development. We cannot provide you any assurance that we will be able to successfully advance any of these additional product candidates through the development process.

Even if we receive FDA approval to market additional product candidates for the treatment of B cell-mediated autoimmune diseases, we cannot assure you that any such product candidates will be successfully commercialized, widely accepted in the marketplace or more effective than other commercially available alternatives. If we are unable to successfully develop and commercialize additional product candidates, our commercial opportunity will be limited. Moreover, a failure in obtaining regulatory approval of additional product candidates may have a negative effect on the approval process of any other, or result in losing approval of any approved, product candidate.

We are highly dependent on our key personnel, and if we are not successful in attracting and retaining highly qualified personnel, we may not be able to successfully implement our business strategy.

Our ability to compete in the highly competitive biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries depends upon our ability to attract and retain highly qualified managerial, scientific and medical personnel. We are highly dependent on our management, scientific, and medical personnel, including our Chief Executive Officer and President, our Scientific Advisory Board members, our President, Science and Technology, our Chief Medical Officer, and our Chief Financial Officer. The loss of the services of any of our executive officers, other key employees, and other scientific and medical advisors, and our inability to find suitable replacements could result in delays in product development and harm our business.

Competition for skilled personnel in our market is intense and may limit our ability to hire and retain highly qualified personnel on acceptable terms or at all. To induce valuable employees to remain at our company, in addition to salary and cash incentives, we have provided stock options that vest over time. The value to employees of stock options that vest over time may be significantly affected by movements in our stock price that are beyond our control and may at any time be insufficient to counteract more lucrative offers from other companies. Despite our efforts to retain valuable employees, members of our management, scientific and development teams may terminate their employment with us on short notice. Although we have employment agreements with our key employees, these employment agreements provide for at-will employment, which means that any of our employees could leave our employment at any time, with or without notice. We do not maintain “key person” insurance policies on the lives of these individuals or the lives of any of

54

our other employees. Our success also depends on our ability to continue to attract, retain and motivate highly skilled junior, mid-level and senior managers as well as junior, mid-level and senior scientific and medical personnel.

We expect to grow the size of our organization, and we may experience difficulties in managing this growth.

As of December 31, 2022, we had 58 full-time employees and two part-time employees. As our development and commercialization plans and strategies develop, and as we continue to broaden our operational capabilities, we expect to expand our employee base and continue to add managerial, operational, sales, research and development, marketing, financial and other personnel. For example, we are still dependent on Penn and certain Penn-affiliated entities to continue providing certain research and development as well as manufacturing services under that certain research services agreement. Current and future growth imposes significant added responsibilities on members of management, including:

Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize our product candidates will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage our growth, and our management may also have to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from day-to-day activities in order to devote a substantial amount of time to managing these growth activities.

We currently rely, and for the foreseeable future will continue to rely, in substantial part on certain independent organizations, advisors and consultants to provide certain services, including certain research and development as well as general and administrative support, pursuant to agreements which expire after a certain period of time. There can be no assurance that the services of independent organizations, advisors and consultants will continue to be available to us on a timely basis when needed, or that we can find qualified replacements. In addition, if we are unable to effectively manage our outsourced activities or if the quality or accuracy of the services provided by consultants is compromised for any reason, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates or otherwise advance our business. There can be no assurance that we will be able to manage our existing consultants or find other competent outside contractors and consultants on economically reasonable terms, or at all.

If we are not able to effectively expand our organization by hiring new employees and expanding our groups of consultants and contractors, or if we are not able to raise sufficient funds in the future to support our hiring efforts beyond our research and development personnel, we may not be able to successfully implement the tasks necessary to further develop and commercialize our product candidates and, accordingly, may not achieve our research, development and commercialization goals.

Business disruptions could seriously harm our future revenue and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses.

Our operations, Penn’s operations and those of any CMOs, CROs and other contractors and consultants that we may engage could be subject to earthquakes, power shortages, telecommunications failures, water shortages, floods, hurricanes, typhoons, fires, extreme weather conditions, medical epidemics and other natural or man-made disasters or business interruptions, for which we are predominantly self-insured. The occurrence of any of these business disruptions could seriously harm our operations and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses. We currently rely on Penn to produce and process DSG3-CAART and anticipate that in the future we will rely on a third-party CMO for the same. Our ability to obtain clinical supplies of our product candidates could be disrupted if the operations of these suppliers are affected by a man-made or natural disaster or other business interruption.

In addition, due to our adoption of a more flexible work model following the COVID-19 pandemic, our increased prevalence of personnel working from home may negatively impact productivity, or disrupt, delay, or otherwise adversely impact our business operations. Further, this could increase our cyber security risk, create data accessibility concerns, and make us more susceptible to communication disruptions, any of which could adversely impact our business operations or delay necessary interactions with local and federal regulators, ethics committees, manufacturing sites, research or clinical trial sites and other important agencies and contractors.

55

Risks Related to Our Financial Condition and Capital Requirements

Risks Related to Past Financial Condition

We have incurred net losses in every period since our inception and anticipate that we will incur substantial net losses over the next several years, and may never achieve or maintain profitability.

Investment in biopharmaceutical product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate adequate effect or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval and become commercially viable. We initially licensed rights to the patents underlying our product candidates in August 2018 and initiated our DesCAARTesTM trial in June 2020. We have no products licensed for commercial sale, and we will continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations. Our net losses may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year. We have to date financed our operations primarily through private placements of our preferred stock, the sale of common stock in our initial public offering and sales of our common stock from time to time in “at-the-market” offerings.

As a result, we are not profitable and have incurred net losses in each period since our inception. For the years ended December 31, 2022 and 2021, we recorded net losses of $53.0 million and $46.3 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2022, we had an accumulated deficit of $165.6 million. We expect to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, and we expect these losses to increase substantially if, and as, we:

To become and remain profitable, we must succeed in developing, and eventually commercializing, a product or products that generate significant revenue. The ability to achieve this success will require us to be effective in a range of challenging activities, including completing preclinical testing and clinical trials of our product candidates, discovering additional product candidates, obtaining regulatory approval for these product candidates and manufacturing, marketing and selling any products for which we may obtain regulatory approval. We are only in the preliminary stages of most of these activities and have not yet demonstrated our ability to successfully develop any product candidate, obtain regulatory approvals, manufacture a commercial scale product or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. We may never be able to develop, manufacture or commercialize a marketable product.

56

Even if we are able to succeed in these activities, we may never generate revenues that are significant enough to achieve profitability. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with pharmaceutical product development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when, or if, we will be able to achieve profitability. Our expenses will increase if, among other things:

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with pharmaceutical product development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of increased expenses we will incur or when, if ever, we will be able to achieve profitability. Even if we succeed in commercializing one or more of our product candidates, we will continue to incur substantial research and development and other expenditures to develop, seek regulatory approval for and market additional product candidates. We may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other unknown factors that may adversely affect our business. The size of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of future growth of our expenses and our ability to generate revenue. Our prior losses and expected future losses have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital.

We have a limited operating history, which may make it difficult to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability, and we may face significant challenges and expense as we test our product candidates and build our capabilities.

We were incorporated in 2017 and initially acquired rights to license certain patent rights from Penn in August 2018, and acquired rights to license certain patent rights from Nanjing IASO Biotherapeutics Co., Ltd., or IASO, in October 2022. We are early in our development efforts, have a limited operating history and are subject to the risks inherent to any newly-formed organization, including, among others, risks that we may not be able to hire sufficient qualified personnel and establish operating controls and procedures.

Our limited operating history, particularly in light of the rapidly evolving cell therapy field, may make it difficult to evaluate our technology and industry and predict our future performance. Our short history as an operating company makes any assessment of our future success or viability subject to significant uncertainty. We will encounter risks and difficulties frequently experienced by early-stage companies in rapidly evolving fields. If we do not address these risks successfully, our business will suffer. Similarly, we expect that our financial condition and operating results will fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year due to a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. As a result, our shareholders should not rely upon the results of any quarterly or annual period as an indicator of future operating performance.

We currently do not have in-house resources sufficient to enable the development of our product candidates, including our CAR T and CAAR T cell platforms. We are reliant on several manufacturing and support services from Penn through a Master Translational Research Services Agreement, or the Services Agreement, as well as certain research and development and general and administrative services through three sponsored research agreements. We also rely on Penn for access to key technologies for current manufacturing of DSG3-CAART. Our ability to rely on services from Penn is limited to a specified period of time, to specific capabilities, and is subject to Penn’s right to terminate these services with or without cause. We are reliant on manufacturing services from WuXi through a Development, Manufacturing and Testing Services Agreement, or the WuXi Agreement. Our ability to rely on services from WuXi is limited to a specified period of time, to specific capabilities, and is subject to WuXi’s right to terminate these services with or without cause. If we are unable to establish necessary relationships with third party partners and build our own capabilities, our operating and financial results could differ materially from our expectations, and our business could suffer. As we build our own capabilities, and enter into agreements with third parties, we expect to encounter risks and uncertainties frequently experienced by growing companies in new and rapidly evolving fields, including the risks and uncertainties described herein.

All of our programs require additional preclinical research and development, clinical development, regulatory approval in multiple jurisdictions, obtaining manufacturing supply, capacity and expertise, building of a commercial organization, substantial investment and significant marketing efforts before we generate any revenue from product sales. Other programs of ours require additional discovery research and then preclinical and clinical development. In addition, our product candidates must be licensed for marketing by the FDA before we may commercialize any product.

57

In addition, as an early-stage company, we have encountered and may continue to encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known and unknown circumstances. As we advance our product candidates, we will need to transition from a company with a research focus to a company capable of supporting clinical development and if successful, commercial activities. We may not be successful in such a transition.

We have not generated any revenue from our product candidates and our ability to generate revenue from product sales and become profitable depends significantly on our success in a number of areas.

To become and remain profitable, we or any potential future collaborator must develop and eventually commercialize products with significant market potential at an adequate profit margin after cost of goods sold and other expenses. All of our product candidates are in the early stages of development and we will require additional preclinical studies, clinical development, regulatory review and approval, substantial investment, access to sufficient commercial manufacturing capacity and significant marketing efforts before we can generate any revenue from product sales. We initiated our DesCAARTesTM trial of DSG3-CAART, our most advanced product candidate, targeting pathogenic B cells in patients with mucosal pemphigus vulgaris, or mPV, in June 2020. Our IND for MuSK-CAART, targeting pathogenic B cells in a subset of patients with myasthenia gravis, or MG, became effective in January 2022. Our other product candidates, which include CABA-201, targeting undisclosed autoimmune disease(s), DSG3/1-CAART, targeting pathogenic B cells in patients with mucocutaneous pemphigus vulgaris, or mcPV, and PLA2R-CAART, targeting pathogenic B cells in patients with PLA2R-associated membranous nephropathy, or PLA2R-associated MN, have yet to complete IND-enabling studies. We have not yet administered any of our product candidates other than DSG3-CAART in humans and, as such, we face significant translational risk as our product candidates advance to the clinical stage. Our ability to generate revenue depends on a number of factors, including, but not limited to:

58

Many of the factors listed above are beyond our control and could cause us to experience significant delays or prevent us from obtaining regulatory approvals or commercialize our product candidates. Even if we are able to commercialize our product candidates, we may not achieve profitability soon after generating product sales, if ever. If we are unable to generate sufficient revenue through the sale of our product candidates or any future product candidates, we may be unable to continue operations without continued funding.

If we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Additionally, even if we succeed in commercializing one or more of our product candidates, we will continue to incur substantial research and development and other expenditures to research, develop and market additional product candidates. Our failure to become and remain profitable would decrease the value of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, maintain our research and development efforts, expand our business or continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company also could cause you to lose all or part of your investment.

We may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other unknown factors that may adversely affect our business. The size of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of future growth of our expenses and our ability to generate revenue. Our prior losses and expected future losses have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital.

Risks Related to Future Financial Condition

We will require substantial additional financing to develop and commercialize our product candidates and implement our operating plans. If we fail to obtain additional financing or cannot obtain financing at the levels we require due to we may be delayed in our plans or unable to complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates.

Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since inception. We expect to continue to spend substantial amounts to continue the preclinical and clinical development of our product candidates, including our DesCAARTesTM trial, our MusCAARTesTM trial, and our research and development, preclinical studies and clinical trials for CABA-201, PLA2R-CAART and DSG3/1-CAART and any future product candidates, to seek regulatory approvals for our product candidates, to enable commercial production of our products, if licensed, and to initiate and complete registration trials for multiple products. While we currently expect our existing cash and cash equivalents and investments to be sufficient to fund our operations through the announcement of six month combination cohort data from the DesCAARTesTM and MusCAARTesTM clinical trials, as well as initial clinical data from the CABA-201 clinical trial, assuming the clearance of our CABA-201 IND by the FDA, we expect to require significant additional financing to complete these Phase 1 trials, and any future clinical trials of these and our other product candidates.

Further, if licensed, we will require significant additional amounts of cash to launch and commercialize our product candidates.

As of December 31, 2022, we had $106.5 million of cash and cash equivalents and investments. On October 29, 2019, we completed an initial public offering of our common stock by issuing 7,275,501 shares of our common stock (including 475,501 shares of our common stock pursuant to the underwriters’ option to purchase additional shares that we issued in November 2019), at $11.00 per share, for gross proceeds of $80.0 million, or net proceeds of $71.0 million. In 2021, we raised $49.7 million, or net proceeds of $48.3 million, in “at-the-market” offerings, pursuant to a Sales Agreement with Cowen and Company, LLC which provides for the offering, issuance and sale of up to an aggregate amount of $75.0 million of our common stock. In December 2022, we issued 126,815 shares of our common stock at a price of $5.52 per share and to certain investors in lieu of common stock, pre-funded warrants to purchase 6,213,776 shares of common stock at a price of $5.51999 per pre-funded warrant. The purchase price per share of each pre-funded warrant represents the per share offering price for the common stock, minus the $0.00001 per share exercise price of such pre-funded warrant. Aggregate net proceeds were $32.6 million after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses. Based on our current operating plan, we believe that our existing cash and cash equivalents and investments will be sufficient to fund our operations into the first quarter of 2025. However, we have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong. Additionally, changing circumstances may cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to spend more money than currently expected because of circumstances beyond our control. We may require substantial additional capital for the further development and commercialization of our product candidates, including funding our internal manufacturing capabilities, and may need to raise additional funds sooner if we choose to expand more rapidly than we presently anticipate. Because the length of time and activities associated with development of our product candidates is highly uncertain, we are unable to estimate the actual funds we will require for development and any approved marketing and commercialization activities. Our future funding requirements, both near- and long-term, will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to:

59

We cannot be certain that additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all. As widely reported, global credit and financial markets have experienced extreme volatility and disruptions, including severely diminished liquidity and credit availability, declines in consumer confidence, declines in economic growth, inflation, increases in unemployment rates and uncertainty about economic stability. There can be no assurance that further deterioration in credit and financial markets and confidence in economic conditions will not occur. Until we are able to generate sufficient revenue to finance our cash requirements, we will need to finance our future cash needs through a combination of public or private equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, strategic alliances, licensing arrangements and other marketing or distribution arrangements. If we are unable to raise additional capital in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, we may have to significantly delay, scale back or discontinue our research and development initiatives and clinical development plans. We could be required to seek collaborators for our product candidates at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable or on terms that are less favorable than might otherwise be available or relinquish or license on unfavorable terms our rights to our product candidates in markets where we otherwise would seek to pursue development or commercialization ourselves.

Future sales and issuances of our common stock or rights to purchase common stock, including pursuant to our equity incentive plans, could result in additional dilution of the percentage ownership of our stockholders and could cause our stock price to fall.

We expect that significant additional capital may be needed in the future to continue our planned operations, including conducting clinical trials, commercialization efforts, expanded research and development activities and costs associated with operating a public company. To raise capital, we may sell common stock, convertible securities or other equity securities in one or more transactions at prices and in a manner we determine from time to time. If we sell common stock, convertible securities or other equity securities, investors may be materially diluted by subsequent sales. Such sales may also result in material dilution to our existing stockholders, and new investors could gain rights, preferences and privileges senior to the holders of our common stock.

Pursuant to our equity incentive plans, our management is authorized to grant stock options to our employees, directors and consultants. Additionally, the number of shares of our common stock reserved for issuance under the 2019 Stock Option and Incentive Plan automatically increased on January 1, 2023 and will automatically increase each January 1 thereafter through and including January 1, 2029, by 4% of the total number of shares of our capital stock outstanding on December 31 of the preceding calendar year, or a lesser number of shares determined by our board of directors. Unless our board of directors elects not to increase the number of shares available for future grant each year, our stockholders may experience additional dilution, which could cause our stock price to fall.

Any of the above events could significantly harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations and cause the price of our common stock to decline.

60

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

We rely heavily on certain in-licensed patent and other intellectual property rights in connection with our development of our product candidates and, if we fail to comply with our obligations under our existing and any future intellectual property licenses with third parties, we could lose license rights that are important to our business.

Our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates is heavily dependent on in-licenses to patent rights and other intellectual property granted to us by third parties. For example, we depend heavily on our License Agreement with Penn and CHOP, which was entered into in 2018, amended and restated in July 2019, and further amended in May 2020 and October 2021, pursuant to which we obtained (a) a non-exclusive, non-sublicensable, worldwide research license to intellectual property controlled by Penn and CHOP to make, have made and use products in two subfields of use, (b) effective as of October 2018, an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing license, with the right to sublicense, under certain of such intellectual property to make, use, sell, offer for sale and import products in the same two subfields of use, and (c) effective as of October 2018, a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing license, with limited rights to sublicense, under certain of Penn’s know-how, which know-how satisfies certain criteria and is listed on a mutually agreed to schedule, to make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale, import and have imported products in the same two subfields of use. We also depend on our Exclusive License Agreement with IASO, which was entered into in October 2022, pursuant to which we obtained a worldwide, exclusive license under certain intellectual property to develop, manufacture, commercialize and otherwise exploit T cell products directed to CD19 for the purpose of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of an autoimmune or alloimmune indication in humans, or the IASO Agreement. We may enter into additional license agreements in the future. Our license agreements with Penn, CHOP and IASO impose, and we expect that future license agreements will impose, various diligence, milestone payment, royalty, insurance and other obligations on us. If we fail to comply with our obligations under these licenses, our licensors, including Penn, CHOP and IASO may have the right to terminate these license agreements, in which event we might not be able to market our product candidates. Termination of any of our license agreements or reduction or elimination of our licensed rights may also result in our having to negotiate new or reinstated licenses with less favorable terms.

We may need to obtain additional licenses from third parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of our product candidates, and we have done so from time to time. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In that event, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to develop or license replacement technology. If we are unable to do so, we may be unable to develop or commercialize the affected product candidates, which could harm our business significantly. We cannot provide any assurances that third-party patents do not exist which might be enforced against our current product candidates or future products, resulting in either an injunction prohibiting our sales, or, with respect to our sales, an obligation on our part to pay royalties and/or other forms of compensation to third parties.

Furthermore, in many cases, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, covering technology that we in-license from third parties. For example, pursuant to our IASO Agreement, IASO controls such activities for the patent rights licensed to us under such agreement. Pursuant to our License Agreement with Penn and CHOP, Penn controls such activities for the patent rights licensed to us under such agreement. Therefore, although we provide input to IASO, Penn and CHOP on these activities, we cannot be certain that these patents will be prosecuted, maintained and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. If our current or future licensors or collaboration partners fail to obtain, maintain or protect any patents or patent applications licensed to us, our rights to such patents and patent applications may be reduced or eliminated and our right to develop and commercialize any of our product candidates that are the subject of such licensed rights could be adversely affected.

Disputes may arise between us and our current and future licensors regarding intellectual property subject to a license agreement, including those related to:

Furthermore, disputes may arise between us and our current or future licensors regarding the ownership of intellectual property developed by us, such that we may be required to assign or otherwise transfer such intellectual property to such licensor. In the event that the assigned or transferred intellectual property is covered by an existing license agreement with such licensor we may be required

61

to make additional royalty or milestone payments, or both, to such licensor. If the assigned or transferred intellectual property is not covered by an existing license agreement, then we may be required to enter into an additional license agreement to advance our research or allow commercialization of our product candidates, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

If disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed, or license in the future, prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates.

If our efforts to protect the proprietary nature of the intellectual property related to our current and any future product candidates are not adequate, we may not be able to compete effectively in our market.

Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain intellectual property protection in the United States and other countries with respect to our product candidates. If we do not adequately protect or enforce our intellectual property rights, competitors may be able to erode or negate any competitive advantage we may have, which could harm our business and ability to achieve profitability. To protect our proprietary position, we have in-licensed patent rights in the United States and abroad relating to the product candidates that are important to our business. The patent application and approval process is expensive, complex and time-consuming. Our licensors may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner.

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain. No consistent policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed in biotechnology and pharmaceutical patents has emerged to date in the United States or in many foreign jurisdictions. In addition, the determination of patent rights with respect to biological and pharmaceutical products commonly involves complex legal and factual questions, which has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Pending patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless and until a patent issues from such applications. Assuming the other requirements for patentability are met, currently, the first to file a patent application is generally entitled to the patent. However, prior to March 16, 2013, in the United States, the first to invent was entitled to the patent. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot be certain that our licensors were the first to make the inventions claimed in the patents or pending patent applications we in-license, or that our licensors were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions.

Moreover, because the issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, the patents or pending patent applications we in-license may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. For example, we may be subject to a third party preissuance submission of prior art to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, or become involved in post-grant review procedures, derivation proceedings, reexaminations, or inter partes review in the United States, or oppositions and other comparable proceedings in foreign jurisdictions, challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and product candidates. In addition, given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized.

Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of the patents we in-license or narrow the scope of our patent protection. In addition, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the United States. For example, European patent law is more restrictive than U.S. patent law in connection with the patentability of methods of treatment of the human body and Chinese bankruptcy law may not provide a licensee the same protections as U.S. bankruptcy law. This could impact our in-license under the IASO Agreement with IASO, a China-based company, if IASO declared bankruptcy, and could have a material adverse effect on the development of CABA-201.

62

A European Unified Patent Court (UPC) is scheduled to come into force during 2023. The UPC will be a common patent court to hear patent infringement and revocation proceedings effective for member states of the European Union. This could enable third parties to seek revocation of any of our European patents in a single proceeding at the UPC rather than through multiple proceedings in each of the jurisdictions in which the European patent is validated. Any such revocation and loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business and our ability to commercialize or license our technology and products. Moreover, the controlling laws and regulations of the UPC will develop over time, and may adversely affect our ability to enforce or defend the validity of our European patents. We may decide to opt out our European patents and patent applications from the UPC. If certain formalities and requirements are not met, however, our European patents and patent applications could be challenged for non-compliance and brought under the jurisdiction of the UPC. We cannot be certain that our European patents and patent applications will avoid falling under the jurisdiction of the UPC, if we decide to opt out of the UPC.

We cannot predict whether the patent applications we in-license currently being pursued will issue as patents, whether the claims of any patent that has or may issue will provide us with a competitive advantage or prevent competitors from designing around the claims to develop competing technologies in a non-infringing manner, or whether we or our licensors will be able to successfully pursue patent applications in the future relating to our current product candidates or future products and product candidates. Moreover, the patent application and approval process is expensive and time-consuming. We or our licensors may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. Furthermore, we, or any future partners, collaborators, or licensees, may fail to identify patentable aspects of inventions made in the course of development and commercialization activities before it is too late to obtain patent protection on them. Therefore, we may miss potential opportunities to seek additional patent protection.

It is possible that defects of form in the preparation or filing of patent applications may exist, or may arise in the future, for example with respect to proper priority claims, inventorship, claim scope, or requests for patent term adjustments. If we fail to establish, maintain or protect such patents and other intellectual property rights, such rights may be reduced or eliminated. If there are material defects in the form, preparation, prosecution or enforcement of the patents or patent applications we in-license, such patents may be invalid and/or unenforceable, and such applications may never result in valid, enforceable patents. Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competition from third parties, which may have an adverse impact on our business.

Even if the patent applications we in-license issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors from competing with us or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Our competitors may be able to circumvent our patent rights by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner. Our competitors may also seek approval to market their own products similar to or otherwise competitive with our product candidates. Alternatively, our competitors may seek to market generic versions of any approved products by submitting abbreviated BLAs to the FDA during which process they may claim that patents licensed by us are invalid, unenforceable or not infringed. In these circumstances, we may need to defend or assert our intellectual property rights, or both, including by filing lawsuits alleging patent infringement. In any of these types of proceedings, a court or other agency with jurisdiction may find the patents we in-license invalid or unenforceable, or that our competitors are competing in a non-infringing manner. Thus, even if we have in-licensed valid and enforceable patents, these patents still may not provide protection against competing products or processes sufficient to achieve our business objectives. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

In the future, we likely will need to expand our patent portfolio to pursue patent coverage for new product candidates that we wish to develop. The patent prosecution process is competitive, and other companies, some which may have greater resources than we do in this area, may also be pursuing intellectual property rights that we may consider necessary or attractive in order to develop and commercialize future product candidates.

We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.

Filing, prosecuting, maintaining, defending and enforcing patents on our product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States could be less extensive than those in the United States. The deadline to pursue protection in foreign jurisdictions for some of the patent families licensed under the License Agreement with Penn has not yet expired. Prior to applicable deadlines, we and Penn will need to decide where to pursue protection, and we will not have the opportunity to pursue protection unless we do so in applicable jurisdictions prior to the deadlines. Although our License Agreement and IASO Agreement grant us worldwide rights, there can be no assurance that we will obtain or maintain patent rights in or outside the United States under any future license agreements. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States even in jurisdictions where we and our licensors pursue patent protection. Consequently, we and our licensors may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, even in jurisdictions where we and our licensors pursue patent protection, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we and our licensors have not pursued and obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we and our licensors have patent protection, but

63

enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our product candidates and the patents we in-license or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of the patents we in-license or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights, even if obtained, in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put the patents we in-license at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and the patent applications we in-license at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

We or our licensors may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship or ownership of the patents and other intellectual property that we own or license.

We or our licensors may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an ownership interest in the patents and intellectual property that we in-license or that we may own or in-license in the future. While it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who in fact develops intellectual property that we regard as our own or such assignments may not be self-executing or may be breached. Our licensors may face similar obstacles. We or our licensors could be subject to ownership disputes arising, for example, from conflicting obligations of employees, consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates. For example, our scientific co-founders, Drs. Payne and Milone, are members of our scientific advisory board and are also employed by and subject to Penn’s intellectual property policy. Litigation may be necessary to defend against any claims challenging inventorship or ownership. If we or our licensors fail in defending any such claims, we may have to pay monetary damages and may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, intellectual property, which could adversely impact our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Some intellectual property which we have in-licensed was discovered through government funded programs and thus is subject to federal regulations such as “march-in” rights, certain reporting requirements, and a preference for U.S. industry. Compliance with such regulations may limit our exclusive rights and limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. manufacturers.

Certain of the intellectual property rights we have licensed, including rights licensed to us by Penn relating to our DSG3-CAART and DSG3/1-CAART product candidates, was generated through the use of U.S. government funding and may therefore be subject to certain federal laws and regulations. As a result, the U.S. government has certain rights to intellectual property embodied in our DSG3-CAART and DSG3/1-CAART product candidates and may have rights in future product candidates pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. These U.S. government rights in certain inventions developed under a government-funded program include a non-exclusive, non-transferable, irrevocable worldwide license to use inventions for any governmental purpose. In addition, the U.S. government has the right to require us to grant exclusive, partially exclusive, or non-exclusive licenses to any of these inventions to a third party if it determines that: (i) adequate steps have not been taken to commercialize the invention; (ii) government action is necessary to meet public health or safety needs; or (iii) government action is necessary to meet requirements for public use under federal regulations, also referred to as “march-in rights”. The U.S. government also has the right to take title to these inventions if we, or the applicable licensor, such as Penn, fail to disclose the invention to the government and fail to file an application to register the intellectual property within specified time limits. Intellectual property generated under a government funded program is also subject to certain reporting requirements, compliance with which may require us or the applicable licensor to expend substantial resources. In addition, the U.S. government requires that products embodying the subject invention or produced through the use of the subject invention be manufactured substantially in the United States. The manufacturing preference requirement can be waived if the owner of the intellectual property can show that reasonable but unsuccessful efforts have been made to grant licenses on similar terms to potential licensees that would be likely to manufacture substantially in the United States or that under the circumstances domestic manufacture is not commercially feasible. This preference for U.S. manufacturers may limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. product manufacturers for product candidates covered by such intellectual property.

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

Competitors may infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate patents, trademarks, copyrights or other intellectual property that we own or in-license. To counter infringement, misappropriation or other unauthorized use, we may be required to file claims, which can be expensive and time consuming and divert the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel. Any claims we assert against perceived violators could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe, misappropriate

64

or otherwise violate their intellectual property, in addition to counterclaims asserting that the patents we in-license are invalid or unenforceable, or both. In any patent infringement proceeding, there is a risk that a court will decide that a patent we in-license is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, and that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue. In the U.S., grounds for a validity challenge in a court proceeding could be an alleged failure to meet one or more statutory requirements for patentability, including, for example, lack of novelty, obviousness, lack of written description or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. Additionally, third parties are able to challenge the validity of issued patents through administrative proceedings in the patent offices of certain countries, including the USPTO and the European Patent Office.

Even if the validity of a patent is upheld during a court proceeding, there is a risk that the court will construe the patent’s claims narrowly or decide that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue on the grounds that the patent claims do not cover the invention. An adverse outcome in a litigation or proceeding involving the patents we in-license could limit our ability to assert the patent we in-license against those parties or other competitors and may curtail or preclude our ability to exclude third parties from making and selling similar or competitive products. Any of these occurrences could adversely affect our competitive business position, business prospects and financial condition.

Even if we establish infringement, misappropriation or another violation of our intellectual property rights, the court may decide not to grant an injunction against the offender and instead award only monetary damages, which may or may not be an adequate remedy. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during litigation. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of our shares. Moreover, there can be no assurance that we will have sufficient financial or other resources to file and pursue such claims, which typically last for years before they are concluded. Even if we ultimately prevail in such claims, the monetary cost of such litigation and the diversion of the attention of our management and scientific personnel could outweigh any benefit we receive as a result of the proceedings. Any of the foregoing may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Changes in patent law in the United States and other jurisdictions could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our product candidates.

Changes in either the patent laws or the interpretation of the patent laws in the United States or other jurisdictions could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, was signed into law. When implemented, the Leahy-Smith Act included several significant changes to U.S. patent law that impacted how patent rights could be prosecuted, enforced and defended. In particular, the Leahy-Smith Act also included provisions that switched the United States from a “first-to-invent” system to a “first-to-file” system, allowed third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and set forth additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent by the USPTO administered post grant proceedings. Under a first-to-file system, assuming the other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application generally will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether another inventor had made the invention earlier. The USPTO developed new regulations and procedures governing the administration of the Leahy-Smith Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the Leahy-Smith Act, and in particular, the first to file provisions, became effective on March 16, 2013. It remains unclear what impact, if any, the Leahy-Smith Act will have on the operation of our business. However, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of the patent applications we in-license and the enforcement or defense of the issued patents we in-license, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

65

The patent positions of companies engaged in the development and commercialization of biologics are particularly uncertain. For example, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., or Myriad, a case involving patent claims held by Myriad Genetics, Inc. relating to the breast cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. Myriad held that an isolated segment of naturally occurring DNA, such as the DNA constituting the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, is not patent-eligible subject matter, but that complementary DNA, which is an artificial construct that may be created from RNA transcripts of genes, may be patent-eligible. Thereafter, the USPTO issued a guidance memorandum instructing USPTO examiners on the ramifications of the Prometheus and Myriad rulings and apply the Myriad ruling to natural products and principles including all naturally occurring nucleic acids. Certain claims of our in-licensed patent applications contain, and any future patents we may obtain may contain, claims that relate to specific recombinant DNA sequences that are naturally occurring at least in part and, therefore, could be the subject of future challenges made by third parties.

We cannot assure you that our efforts to seek patent protection for one or more of our product candidates will not be negatively impacted by this Supreme Court decision, rulings in other cases or changes in guidance or procedures issued by the USPTO. We cannot fully predict what impact the Supreme Court’s decisions in Myriad may have on the ability of life science companies to obtain or enforce patents relating to their products in the future. These decisions, the guidance issued by the USPTO and rulings in other cases or changes in USPTO guidance or procedures could have a material adverse effect on our existing patent rights and our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property in the future.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of trade secrets, our business and competitive position would be harmed.

In addition to the protection afforded by patents, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect certain proprietary know-how that is not patentable or that we elect not to patent, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce, and any other elements of our product candidate discovery and development processes that involve proprietary know-how, information or technology that is not covered by patents. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect and some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, and contractors. We cannot guarantee that we have entered into such agreements with each party that may have or has had access to our trade secrets or proprietary technology and processes. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. While we have confidence in these individuals, organizations and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach.

In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. Competitors and other third parties could infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate our intellectual property rights, design around our protected technology or develop their own competitive technologies that fall outside of our intellectual property rights. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor or other third party, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If our trade secrets are not adequately protected or sufficient to provide an advantage over our competitors, our competitive position could be adversely affected, as could our business. Additionally, if the steps taken to maintain our trade secrets are deemed inadequate, we may have insufficient recourse against third parties for misappropriating our trade secrets.

Patent term may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on our product candidates for an adequate amount of time.

Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. In the United States, the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the normal expiration of the patent, which is limited to the approved indication (or any additional indications approved during the period of extension). However, a patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of the product’s approval by the FDA, only one patent applicable to an approved drug is eligible for the extension, and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. In the future, if and when our product candidates receive FDA approval, we plan to apply for patent term extensions on patents covering those product candidates in any jurisdiction where these are available. However, the applicable authorities, including the FDA and the USPTO in the United States, and any equivalent regulatory authority in other countries, may not agree with our assessment of whether such extensions are available, and may refuse to grant extensions to the patents we in-license, or may grant more limited extensions than we request. Moreover, we may not receive an extension because of, for example, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. If this occurs, our competitors may be able to take advantage of our investment in development and clinical trials by referencing our clinical and preclinical data and launch their product earlier than might otherwise be the case.

66

We may be subject to claims asserting that our employees, consultants or advisors have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of their current or former employers or claims asserting ownership of what we regard as our own intellectual property.

Certain of our employees, consultants or advisors are currently, or were previously, employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants and advisors do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that these individuals or we have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such individual’s current or former employer. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management. Our licensors may face similar risks, which could have an adverse impact on intellectual property that is licensed to us.

We may become subject to claims that we are infringing certain third-party patents or other third-party intellectual property rights, any of which may prevent or delay our development and commercialization efforts and have a material adverse effect on our business.

Our commercial success depends in part on avoiding infringing, misappropriating and otherwise violating the patents and other intellectual property and proprietary rights of third parties. There is a substantial amount of litigation, both within and outside the United States, involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including patent infringement lawsuits, and administrative proceedings such as interferences, inter partes review and post grant review proceedings before the USPTO and opposition proceedings before foreign patent offices. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned or controlled by third parties, including our competitors, exist in the fields in which we are pursuing product candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our product candidates may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent rights of third parties.

Third parties may assert that we or our licensors are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to materials, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment relating to our product candidates and, because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending third party patent applications which may later result in issued patents, in each case that our product candidates, their manufacture or use may infringe or be alleged to infringe. We may fail to identify potentially relevant patents or patent applications, incorrectly conclude that a patent is invalid or does not cover our activities, or incorrectly conclude that a patent application is unlikely to issue in a form of relevance to our activities.

Parties making patent infringement claims against us may obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize one or more of our product candidates. Defense of these claims, including demonstrating non-infringement, invalidity or unenforceability of the respective patent rights in question, regardless of their merit, is time-consuming, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. For example, in order to successfully challenge the validity of any U.S. patent in federal court, we would need to overcome a presumption of validity. This is a high burden requiring us to present clear and convincing evidence as to the invalidity of any such U.S. patent claim, and we can provide no assurance that a court of competent jurisdiction would invalidate the claims of any such U.S. patent. We may not have sufficient resources to bring these actions to a successful conclusion. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of our shares.

67

In the event that a holder of any such patents seeks to enforce its patent rights against us with respect to one or more of our product candidates, and our defenses against the infringement of such patent rights are unsuccessful, we may be precluded from commercializing our product candidates, even if approved, without first obtaining a license to some or all of these patents, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Moreover, we may be required to pay significant fees and royalties to secure a license to the applicable patents. Such a license may only be non-exclusive, in which case our ability to stop others from using or commercializing technology and products similar or identical to ours may be limited. Furthermore, we could be liable for damages to the holder of these patents, which may be significant and could include treble damages if we are found to have willfully infringed such patents. In the event that a challenge to these patents were to be unsuccessful or we were to become subject to litigation or unable to obtain a license on commercially reasonable terms with respect to these patents, it could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We are aware of third-party issued U.S. patents relating to the lentiviral vectors which may be used in the manufacture or use of our product candidates. If these patent rights were enforced against us, we believe that we have defenses against any such action, including that these patents would not be infringed by our product candidates and/or that these patents are not valid. However, if these patents were enforced against us and defenses to such enforcement were unsuccessful, unless we obtain a license to these patents, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, we could be liable for damages and precluded from commercializing any product candidates that were ultimately held to infringe these patents, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Even in the absence of a finding of infringement, we may need or may choose to obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of our product candidates. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, or at all. In that event, we would be unable to further develop and commercialize our product candidates. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar negative impact on our business. Any of the foregoing could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Intellectual property rights do not necessarily address all potential threats.

The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations and may not adequately protect our business or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. For example:

68

Should any of these events occur, they could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Risks Related to Our Reliance on Third Parties

We are reliant on a research services agreement with Penn for a significant portion of our nonclinical research and development activities and current manufacturing activities.

If Penn and its affiliated entities were to fail to perform their obligations in accordance with the terms of the Services Agreement or terminate the Services Agreement with little notice, we may have difficulty continuing our normal business operations and our business prospects, financial condition and results of operations could be harmed. In addition, the termination of our relationship with Penn and the Services Agreement and any delay in appointing or finding a suitable replacement provider, if one exists, could make it difficult for us to operate our business for that period. Moreover, we will be reliant on Penn to assist us with any necessary technology transfer. Any delays or inadequacies in such technology transfer, or disputes regarding the scope of such technology transfer, could delay our operations, including our clinical trials, require us to expend additional resources and otherwise have an adverse effect on our business.

Additionally, over time we will need to transition from receiving the services that Penn currently provides to performing such services internally. The Services Agreement is scheduled to expire on the later of October 19, 2021 or completion of all research and development projects, and unless the Services Agreement is amended, Penn will not be obligated to provide any further services under the Services Agreement after that time. We currently anticipate that research and development projects under the Services Agreement will continue through at least 2023. In addition, Penn has the right to terminate the Services Agreement in whole at any time with 90 days’ notice and to terminate any research and development project being performed under the Services Agreement if the Penn service provider appointed to lead such project is unavailable and Penn is unavailable to find a replacement within 60 days for such service provider. Penn also has the right to terminate certain manufacturing services being performed under the Services Agreement with 180 days’ written notice. From time to time, we may enter into further addenda to the Services Agreement that provide Penn with the right to terminate such addenda with limited notice periods. If we do not have adequate personnel and capabilities at the time that we assume responsibilities for such services, we may not be successful in effectively or efficiently transitioning these services from Penn, which could disrupt our business and have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Further, we will incur costs relating to establishing our own financial, administrative, information technology and other support functions as well as running and maintaining such functions on a going-forward basis. In addition, the process of establishing such functions may distract our management from focusing on business and strategic opportunities and could result in disruptions to our business. Even if we are able to successfully transition these services, they may be more expensive or less efficient than the services we are receiving from Penn during the transition period.

We currently, and will likely continue to, rely on third parties to conduct our clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval of or commercialize our product candidates.

We depend and will continue to depend upon third parties, including independent investigators and collaborators, such as universities, medical institutions, CROs and strategic partners, to conduct our preclinical studies and clinical trials under agreements with us. Specifically, we depend on clinical trial sites to enroll patients and conduct the DesCAARTesTM trial and MusCAARTesTM trial in a timely and appropriate manner. If our clinical trial sites do not conduct the trials on the timeline we expect or otherwise fail to support the trials, our clinical trial results could be significantly delayed, thereby adversely impacting our leadership position in the CAAR T industry and our ability to progress additional product candidates. Further, although we intend to transition our manufacturing needs to a CMO and eventually secure our own clinical manufacturing facility, we must currently rely on Penn to manufacture supplies and process our product candidates. As we open additional clinical trial sites, we expect to have to negotiate budgets and contracts with CROs and study sites, which may result in delays to our development timelines and increased costs.

We will rely heavily on these third parties, including Penn and WuXi, to conduct our manufacturing, and as a result, will have limited control over pace at which these activities are carried out. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our trials is conducted in accordance with applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and our reliance on third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and these third parties are required to comply with FDA’s GCPs which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA for product candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we or any of these third parties fail to comply with applicable GCP requirements, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot provide assurance that, upon inspection, such regulatory authorities will not determine that some or all of our clinical trials do not fully comply with the GCP requirements. For any violations of laws and regulations during the conduct of our clinical trials, we could be subject to untitled and warning letters or enforcement action that may include civil penalties up to and including criminal prosecution. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with biologic product produced under cGMPs and will require a large number of test patients. We also are required to register

69

ongoing clinical trials and post the results of completed clinical trials on a government-sponsored database within certain timeframes. Failure to do so can result in fines, adverse publicity and civil and criminal sanctions.

As widely reported, global credit and financial markets have experienced extreme volatility and disruptions, including severely diminished liquidity and credit availability, declines in consumer confidence, declines in economic growth, increases in unemployment rates and uncertainty about economic stability. In the event that one or more of our current or future service providers, manufacturers and other partners do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines, or conduct our clinical trials in accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated protocols, due to the economic downturn or for any other reasons, then we may not be able to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, marketing approvals for any product candidates we may develop and will not be able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, successfully commercialize our medicines. Our failure or the failure of these third parties to comply with applicable regulatory requirements or our stated protocols could also subject us to enforcement action. Moreover, our business may be implicated if any of these third parties violates federal or state fraud and abuse or false claims laws and regulations or healthcare privacy and security laws.

Any third parties conducting our clinical trials will not be our employees and, except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such third parties, we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our ongoing preclinical and clinical programs. These third parties may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical studies or other drug development activities, which could affect their performance on our behalf. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols or regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to complete development of, obtain regulatory approval of or successfully commercialize our product candidates. As a result, our financial results and the commercial prospects for our product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed.

If any of our relationships with trial sites, or any CRO that we may use in the future, terminates, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative trial sites or CROs or do so on commercially reasonable terms. Switching or adding third parties to conduct our clinical trials involves substantial cost and requires extensive management time and focus. In addition, there is often a natural transition period when a new third party commences work. As a result, delays may occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines. For example, in October 2021, one of our CROs that provides data management, biostatistics and pharmacovigilance data services for the DesCAARTesTM trial, provided us a 60-day notice of termination for convenience, and as a result in December 2021 we transitioned to a new provider of data management, biostatistics and pharmacovigilance data services. Though we carefully manage our relationships with our CROs, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter similar challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and prospects.

We also expect to rely on other third parties to store and distribute drug supplies for our clinical trials. Any performance failure on the part of our distributors could delay clinical development or marketing approval of any product candidates we may develop or commercialization of our medicines, producing additional losses and depriving us of potential product revenue.

70

We intend to rely on third parties to manufacture our clinical product supplies, and we may have to rely on third parties to produce and process our product candidates, if licensed.

Although we may eventually secure our own clinical manufacturing facility for any late phase clinical development that we undertake, we currently rely on third parties, including Penn, to supply raw materials and other important components and WuXi for certain key technologies that are used to manufacture our product candidates and intend in the future to rely on CMOs. In the case of any manufacturing performed for us by third parties, the services performed for us risk being delayed because of the competing priorities that such parties have for utilization of their manufacturing resources and any capacity issues that thereby arise.

We do not yet have sufficient information to reliably estimate the cost of the manufacturing and processing of our product candidates in clinical quantity or commercial quantity, and the actual cost to manufacture and process our product candidates could ultimately materially and adversely affect the commercial viability of our product candidates. As a result, we may never be able to develop a commercially viable product.

In addition, our anticipated reliance on a limited number of third-party manufacturers exposes us to the following risks:

Furthermore, all of our contract manufacturers are engaged with other companies to supply and/or manufacture materials or products for such companies, which exposes our manufacturers to regulatory risks related to the production of such materials and products. As a result, failure to meet the regulatory requirements for the production of those materials and products may affect the regulatory clearance of our contract manufacturers’ facilities generally. If the FDA does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates or if any agency withdraws its approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would negatively impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our product candidates, if licensed.

Our contract manufacturers would also be subject to the same risks we face in developing our own manufacturing capabilities, as described above. Each of these risks could delay our clinical trials, the approval, if any of our product candidates by the FDA or the commercialization of our product candidates or result in higher costs or deprive us of potential product revenue. In addition, we will rely on third parties to perform release tests on our product candidates prior to delivery to patients. If these tests are not appropriately done and test data are not reliable, patients could be put at risk of serious harm.

For more information, see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Manufacturing and Supply”.

71

We may form or seek strategic alliances or enter into additional licensing arrangements in the future, and we may not realize the benefits of such alliances or licensing arrangements.

We may form or seek strategic alliances, create joint ventures or collaborations or enter into additional licensing arrangements with third parties that we believe will complement or augment our development and commercialization efforts with respect to our product candidates and any future product candidates that we may develop. Any of these relationships may require us to incur non-recurring and other charges, increase our near and long-term expenditures, issue securities that dilute our existing stockholders or disrupt our management and business. In addition, we face significant competition in seeking appropriate strategic partners and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. Moreover, we may not be successful in our efforts to establish a strategic partnership or other alternative arrangements for our product candidates because they may be deemed to be at too early of a stage of development for collaborative effort and third parties may not view our product candidates as having the requisite potential to demonstrate safety, potency and purity. Any delays in entering into new strategic partnership agreements related to our product candidates could delay the development and commercialization of our product candidates in certain geographies for certain indications, which would harm our business prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

If we license products or businesses, we may not be able to realize the benefit of such transactions if we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing operations and company culture. For instance, our License Agreement with Penn and CHOP requires significant research and development commitments that may not result in the development and commercialization of our product candidates, including DSG3-CAART and our other product candidates. We cannot be certain that, following a strategic transaction or license, we will achieve the results, revenue or specific net income that justifies such transaction.

We may not realize the benefits of acquired assets or other strategic transactions, including any transactions whereby we acquire or license manufacturing and other advanced technologies.

In August 2018, we entered into a License Agreement with Penn and CHOP which was amended and restated in July 2019, and further amended in May 2020 and October 2021, or the License Agreement, pursuant to which we were granted licenses to certain patent rights for the research and development of products, as well as an exclusive license under those same patent rights to make, use, sell and import such products, in the autoimmune disease and alloimmune response subfields, in each case, for the treatment of humans. In January 2021 and as amended in August 2022, we entered into an agreement with WuXi to serve as our cell processing manufacturing partner for our MusCAARTesTM trial, and have since completed enabling engineering runs. In October 2022, we entered into the IASO Agreement, pursuant to which we were granted worldwide license under certain intellectual property to develop, manufacture, commercialize and otherwise exploit T cell products directed to CD19 for the purpose of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of an autoimmune or alloimmune indication in humans.

We actively evaluate various strategic transactions on an ongoing basis. We may acquire other businesses, products or technologies as well as pursue joint ventures or investments in complementary businesses. The success of our strategic transactions, including the License Agreement, and any future strategic transactions depends on the risks and uncertainties involved including:

If any of these risks or uncertainties occur, we may not realize the anticipated benefit of any acquisition or strategic transaction. Additionally, foreign acquisitions and joint ventures are subject to additional risks, including those related to integration of operations across different cultures and languages, currency risks, potentially adverse tax consequences of overseas operations and the particular economic, political, legal and regulatory risks associated with specific countries. For example, IASO is based in China and we may not receive the same protections under Chinese law, including with respect to applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, liquidation, arrangement, moratorium or similar laws relating to or affecting our rights.

Future acquisitions or dispositions could result in potentially dilutive issuances of our equity securities, the incurrence of debt, contingent liabilities or amortization expenses or write-offs of goodwill, any of which could harm our financial condition.

72

Risks Related to Manufacturing and Supply

We currently rely upon Penn and commercial CMOs for our manufacturing needs, and we intend to continue to rely on other third parties for our future manufacturing needs prior to establishing our own manufacturing facility.

We are currently reliant upon Penn for our cell product manufacturing for DSG3-CAART and WuXi for MuSK-CAART. To support the scale up of manufacture and to support commercially compliant production, we will need to maintain (in the case of WuXi) or develop new relationships with commercially compliant and scalable suppliers, increase the scale of production, and demonstrate comparability of the material produced at these facilities to the material that was previously produced, if a facility change was made. Transferring manufacturing processes and know-how is complex and involves review and incorporation of both documented and undocumented processes that may have evolved over time.

In addition, transferring production to different facilities may require utilization of new or different processes to meet the specific requirements of a given facility. We would expect additional comparability work will also need to be conducted to support the transfer of certain manufacturing processes and process improvements. We cannot be certain that all relevant know-how and data has been adequately incorporated into the manufacturing process until the completion of studies (and the related evaluations) intended to demonstrate the comparability of material previously produced with that generated by any CMO that we engage for our manufacturing needs. If we are not able to successfully transfer and produce comparable product candidates, our ability to further develop and manufacture our product candidates may be negatively impacted.

We may plan to eventually establish our own manufacturing facility. While the addition of our own manufacturing facility would provide us with future flexibility within our manufacturing network, we still may need to identify additional CMOs for continued production of supply for some or all of our product candidates. Given the nature of our manufacturing processes, the number of CMOs who possess the requisite skill and capability to manufacture our CAR T and CAAR T cell immunotherapy product candidates is limited.

Further, we may not be able to achieve clinical manufacturing and cell processing through our CMOs or on our own on a timely basis. While our current manufacturing process is similar to the validated process developed at Penn for CD19 CAR T, or CART19, which was later commercialized, we have limited experience as an organization in managing the CAR T or CAAR T engineering process at commercial scale. Finally, because clinical manufacturing and cell processing is highly complex and patient donor material is inherently variable, we cannot be sure that the manufacturing processes employed by Penn, any CMO that we engage in the future, or by us at a manufacturing facility that we establish, will consistently result in T cells that will be safe and effective. Success in manufacturing in smaller early phase clinical trials may not predict the frequency of success at larger late phase clinical trials, or success at the commercial phase production.

Our product candidates are uniquely manufactured. If we, Penn or any of our third-party manufacturers encounter difficulties in manufacturing our product candidates, our ability to provide supply of our product candidates for clinical trials or, if licensed, for commercial sale, could be delayed or stopped, or we may be unable to maintain a commercially viable cost structure.

The manufacturing process used to produce our product candidates is complex and novel, and it has not yet been validated for commercial production. Among the complex processes used in the manufacture of our product candidates is the manufacture of the lentiviral delivery vector used to deliver the applicable CAR or CAAR gene into the T cells. For example, the manufacture of our product candidates includes harvesting white blood cells from each patient, stimulating certain T cells from the white blood cells and thereby causing them to activate and proliferate, combining patient T cells with our lentiviral delivery vector through a process known as transduction, expanding the transduced T cells to obtain the desired dose, and ultimately infusing the modified T cells back into the patient’s body. Notably, the manufacture of both DSG3/1-CAART may be more challenging or require new gene delivery technology due to the need to deliver large transgenes for these programs, and vector delivery systems have size limitations. Because of these complexities, the cost to manufacture our product candidates is higher than traditional small molecule chemical compounds and monoclonal antibodies, and the manufacturing process is less reliable and is more difficult to reproduce. Furthermore, our manufacturing process development and scale-up is at an early stage. The actual cost to manufacture and process our product candidates could be greater than we expect and could materially and adversely affect the commercial viability of our product candidates.

Our manufacturing process may be susceptible to technical and logistics delays or failures due to the fact that each patient is an independent manufacturing lot, and also due to unique supply chain requirements. These include the collection of white blood cells from patients’ blood, variability in the quality of white blood cells collected from patients’ blood, cryopreservation of the white blood cells collected, packaging and shipment of frozen white blood cells to the manufacturing site in order to enable multi-site studies, procurement of lentiviral vectors that meet potency and purity requirements and shipment to the product candidate manufacturing site, shipment of the final product to clinical centers, manufacturing issues associated with interruptions in the manufacturing process, scheduling constraints for cell manufacturing slots, process contamination, equipment or reagent failure or supply shortage(s)/interruption(s),

73

improper installation or operation of equipment, vendor or operator error, and inconsistency in cell growth. Even minor deviations from normal manufacturing processes could result in reduced production yields, lot failures, product defects, product recalls, product liability claims and other supply disruptions. If microbial, viral, or other contaminations are discovered in our product candidates or in the manufacturing facilities in which our product candidates are made, production at such manufacturing facilities may be interrupted for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination. Further, as product candidates are developed through preclinical studies to late-stage clinical trials toward approval and commercialization, it is common that various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing methods, are altered along the way in an effort to optimize processes and results. Such changes may result in the need to enroll additional patients or to conduct additional clinical studies to evaluate the impact of changes on product safety and efficacy. Penn has informed us that it will be unable provide clinical supply for any late-phase clinical trials of our product candidates that we may conduct. Therefore, we will need to enter into new agreements with CMOs to produce clinical supply of our product candidates for late-phase clinical trials. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to enter into such agreements on commercially acceptable terms, if at all. We will need to transfer the technology to manufacture our product candidates to these CMOs, and these CMOs may decide or be required to adopt different manufacturing protocols or processes, which may require us to amend any ongoing or proposed clinical trial protocols or perform additional preclinical studies to demonstrate the comparability of any such new manufacturing protocols or processes. We cannot provide any assurance that Penn will provide adequate support to efficiently and effectively transfer the technology or that disputes will not arise between us and Penn regarding the necessary scope of technology transfer, that the technology transfer will be successful, or that any CMO will be successful in producing our product candidates in sufficient quantities or of acceptable quality, if at all. Such changes carry the risk that they will not achieve these intended objectives, and any of these changes could cause our product candidates to perform differently and affect the results of ongoing and planned clinical trials or other future clinical trials.

Although we continue to optimize our manufacturing process for our product candidates, doing so is a difficult and uncertain task, and there are risks associated with scaling to the level required for advanced clinical trials or commercialization, including, among others, cost overruns, potential problems with process scale-up, process reproducibility, stability issues, lot consistency and timely availability of reagents and/or raw materials. We ultimately may not be successful in transferring our production system from our contract manufacturer to any manufacturing facilities we may establish ourselves, or our contract manufacturer may not have the necessary capabilities to complete the implementation and development process. If we are unable to adequately validate or scale-up the manufacturing process for our product candidates with our current manufacturer, we will need to transfer to another manufacturer and complete the manufacturing validation process, which can be lengthy. If we are able to adequately validate and scale-up the manufacturing process for our product candidates with a contract manufacturer, we will still need to negotiate with such contract manufacturer an agreement for commercial supply and it is not certain we will be able to come to agreement on terms acceptable to us. As a result, we may ultimately be unable to reduce the cost of goods for our product candidates to levels that will allow for an attractive return on investment if and when those product candidates are commercialized.

In addition, many of the components which are required to support our cell manufacturing process, such as equipment, media, growth factors and disposables, are highly specialized and it is possible that the supply chain for these materials may be interrupted. If we are unable to promptly remedy such interruption, then there may be delays to our clinical development efforts.

74

The manufacturing process for any products that we may develop is subject to the FDA approval process, and we will need to contract with manufacturers who can meet all applicable FDA requirements on an ongoing basis.

The manufacturing process for any products that we may develop is subject to the FDA approval process, and we will need to contract with manufacturers who can meet all applicable FDA requirements on an ongoing basis. If we or our CMOs are unable to reliably produce products to specifications acceptable to the FDA, we may not obtain or maintain the approvals we need to commercialize such products. Even if we obtain regulatory approval for any of our product candidates, there is no assurance that either we or our CMOs will be able to manufacture the approved product in accordance with requirements from the FDA, to produce it in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements for the potential launch of the product, or to meet potential future demand. Any of these challenges could delay completion of clinical trials, require bridging clinical trials or the repetition of one or more clinical trials, increase clinical trial costs, result in sanctions being imposed on us, including clinical holds, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, suspension of production or recalls of the product candidates or marketed biologics, operating restriction and criminal prosecutions, delay approval of our product candidates, impair commercialization efforts, increase our cost of goods, and have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects. Our future success depends on our ability to manufacture our products, if licensed, on a timely basis with acceptable manufacturing costs, while at the same time maintaining good quality control and complying with applicable regulatory requirements, and an inability to do so could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations. In addition, we could incur higher manufacturing costs if manufacturing processes or standards change, and we could need to replace, modify, design, or build and install equipment, all of which would require additional capital expenditures. Specifically, because our product candidates may have a higher cost of goods than conventional therapies, the risk that coverage and reimbursement rates may be inadequate for us to achieve profitability may be greater.

The manufacture of viral vectors is complex and variable, and there are a limited number of manufacturers able to supply us with viral vectors.

Our DSG3-CAART and MuSK-CAART product candidates utilize a lentiviral delivery vector and some or all of our other product candidates may require a lentiviral delivery vector, a key drug substance that delivers the CAR or CAAR to the target T cells. We do not have the capability to manufacture lentiviral vector and plan to obtain the vector we require from third parties. The manufacturing process for lentiviral vector is variable and still evolving. It is not uncommon for manufacturing runs to fail, whether due to contamination, supplier error, or equipment failure, or to be delayed. To the extent our product candidates use a lentiviral delivery vector, a lack of vector supply will cause us to be unable to manufacture our CAR T or CAAR T cells as well as a delay in patient enrollment, which may have a negative impact on our ability to successfully develop our product candidates.

Further, there are a limited number of manufacturers capable of producing lentiviral vectors. It can be challenging to secure a relationship with any of these manufacturers, and the manufacturing and release process can take a significant amount of time. We have secured a supply of lentiviral vector from CHOP sufficient for a portion of the patients we plan to enroll in our DesCAARTesTM trial. We have also reserved additional vector manufacturing capacity at Penn and CHOP and in December 2021, we secured a license and supply agreement with Oxford Biomedica to establish a process and supply lentiviral vector for the clinical and commercial development of our DSG3-CAART candidate. There is no assurance that we will be able to secure adequate and timely supply of lentiviral vector. Moreover, we cannot be certain that our CAR T or CAAR T cell product candidates produced with lentiviral vector from different manufacturers will be comparable or that results of clinical trials will be consistent if conducted with lentiviral vector from different manufacturers.

Vector production also requires the production of high-quality DNA plasmids, for which there is also a limited number of suppliers. Although we have established relationships with multiple suppliers for lentiviral vector and plasmids, we do not yet have our own clinical-scale manufacturing facility established, and are therefore highly dependent on the ability of these suppliers to manufacture necessary materials and to deliver these materials to us on a timely and reliable basis.

If we are to operate our own manufacturing facility, significant resources will be required and we may fail to successfully operate our facility, which could adversely affect our clinical trials and the commercial viability of our product candidates.

If we establish our own manufacturing facility, our operations will be subject to review and oversight by the FDA and the FDA could object to our use of our manufacturing facility. We must first receive approval from the FDA prior to licensure to manufacture our product candidates, which we may never obtain. Even if licensed, we would be subject to ongoing periodic unannounced inspection by the FDA and corresponding state agencies to ensure strict compliance with cGMPs and other government regulations. Our license to manufacture product candidates will be subject to continued regulatory review.

Our cost of goods development is at an early stage. The actual cost to manufacture and process our product candidates could be greater than we expect and could materially and adversely affect the commercial viability of our product candidates.

75

The manufacture of biopharmaceutical products is complex and requires significant expertise, and can be impacted by resource constraints, labor disputes and workforce limitations.

The manufacture of biopharmaceutical products is complex and requires significant expertise, including the development of advanced manufacturing techniques and process controls. Manufacturers of cell therapy products often encounter difficulties in production, particularly in scaling out and validating initial production and ensuring the absence of contamination. These problems include difficulties with production costs and yields, quality control, including stability of the product, quality assurance testing, operator error, shortages of qualified personnel, as well as compliance with strictly enforced federal, state and foreign regulations. Furthermore, if contaminants are discovered in our supply of product candidates or in the manufacturing facilities upon which we currently or will rely, such manufacturing facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination. We cannot assure you that any stability or other issues relating to the manufacture of our product candidates, whether by Penn, by a third-party CMO, or at any manufacturing facility that we may establish, will not occur in the future.

Penn, third-party CMOs that we engage, or we may fail to manage the logistics of storing and shipping our product candidates. Storage failures and shipment delays and problems caused by us, our vendors or other factors not in our control, such as weather, could result in loss of usable product or prevent or delay the delivery of product candidates to patients.

Penn, third-party CMOs that we engage, or we may also experience manufacturing difficulties due to resource constraints, labor disputes or workforce limitations arising from the expanding need for manufacturing in the cell therapy field and the limited number of training programs for technical staff. If we were to encounter any of these difficulties, our ability to provide our product candidates to patients would be jeopardized.

We are dependent upon the availability of specialty raw materials and the production capabilities of small manufacturers to source the components of our product candidates.

Our product candidates require many specialty raw materials, some of which are manufactured by small companies with limited resources and experience to support a commercial product, and the suppliers may not be able to deliver raw materials to our specifications. In addition, those suppliers generally do not have the capacity to support commercial products manufactured under cGMP by biopharmaceutical firms. The suppliers may be ill-equipped to support our needs, especially in non-routine circumstances like an FDA inspection or medical crisis, such as widespread contamination. We also do not have contracts with many of these suppliers, and we may not be able to contract with them on acceptable terms or at all. Accordingly, we may experience delays in receiving key raw materials to support clinical or commercial manufacturing.

In addition, some raw materials are currently available from a single supplier, or a small number of suppliers. We cannot be sure that these suppliers will remain in business or that they will not be purchased by one of our competitors or another company that is not interested in continuing to produce these materials for our intended purpose. In addition, the lead time needed to establish a relationship with a new supplier can be lengthy, and we may experience delays in meeting demand in the event we must switch to a new supplier. The time and effort to qualify a new supplier could result in additional costs, diversion of resources or reduced manufacturing yields, any of which would negatively impact our operating results. Further, we may be unable to enter into agreements with a new supplier on commercially reasonable terms, which could have a material adverse impact on our business. We are also unable to predict how changing global economic conditions or global health concerns such as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic will affect our third-party suppliers and manufacturers. Any negative impact of such matters on our third-party suppliers and manufacturers may also have an adverse impact on our results of operations or financial condition.

76

We may encounter difficulties in production, particularly with respect to process development or scaling up of our manufacturing capabilities. If we encounter such difficulties, our ability to provide supply of our CAR T or CAAR T cells for clinical trials or for commercial purposes could be delayed or stopped.

Establishing clinical and commercial manufacturing and supply is a difficult and uncertain task, and there are risks associated with scaling to the level required for advanced clinical trials or commercialization, including, among others, increased costs, potential problems with process scale-out, process reproducibility, stability issues, lot consistency, and timely availability of reagents or raw materials. For example, we may find it difficult to establish a manufacturing process that is consistent. If this occurs, we may need to complete more than one manufacturing run for each treated patient, which would impact the availability of adequate coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors. Competitors that have developed CAR T cell therapies have had difficulty reliably producing engineered T cell therapies in the commercial setting. If we experience similar challenges manufacturing product candidates to approved specifications, this may limit our product candidates’ utilization and our ability to receive payment for these product candidates once licensed. Alternatively, these challenges may require changes to our manufacturing processes, which could require us to perform additional clinical studies, incurring significant expense. We may ultimately be unable to reduce the expenses associated with our product candidates to levels that will allow us to achieve a profitable return on investment.

If we or our third-party suppliers use hazardous, non-hazardous, biological or other materials in a manner that causes injury or violates applicable law, we may be liable for damages.

Our research and development activities involve the controlled use of potentially hazardous substances, including chemical and biological materials. We and our suppliers are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations in the United States governing the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of medical and hazardous materials. Although we believe that we and our suppliers’ procedures for using, handling, storing and disposing of these materials comply with legally prescribed standards, we and our suppliers cannot completely eliminate the risk of contamination or injury resulting from medical or hazardous materials. As a result of any such contamination or injury, we may incur liability or local, city, state or federal authorities may curtail the use of these materials and interrupt our business operations. In the event of an accident, we could be held liable for damages or penalized with fines, and the liability could exceed our resources. We do not have any insurance for liabilities arising from medical or hazardous materials. Compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations is expensive, and current or future environmental regulations may impair our research, development and production efforts, which could harm our business, prospects, financial condition or results of operations.

Changes in product candidate manufacturing or formulation may result in additional costs or delay, which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

As product candidates are developed through preclinical studies to later-stage clinical trials towards approval and commercialization, it is common that various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing methods or formulation, are altered along the way in an effort to optimize processes and results. Any of these changes could cause our product candidates to perform differently and affect the results of ongoing and planned clinical trials or other future clinical trials conducted with the altered materials or with materials made with the altered methods. Such changes may also require additional testing, or notification to, or approval by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. This could delay completion of clinical trials, require the conduct of bridging clinical trials or studies, require the repetition of one or more clinical trials, increase clinical trial costs, delay approval of our product candidates and/or jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue.

Risks Related to Government Regulation

The FDA regulatory approval process is lengthy and time-consuming, and we may experience significant delays in the clinical development and regulatory approval of our product candidates.

The research, testing, manufacturing, labeling, approval, selling, import, export, marketing and distribution of drug products, including biologics, are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory authorities in the United States. We are not permitted to market any biological drug product in the United States until we receive approval of a Biologics License Application, or BLA, from the FDA. We have not previously submitted a BLA to the FDA, or similar licensure filings to comparable foreign authorities. A BLA must include extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to establish the product candidate’s safety, potency and purity for each desired indication. The BLA must also include significant information regarding the chemistry, manufacturing and controls for the product, including with respect to chain of identity and chain of custody of the product.

77

We expect the novel nature of our product candidates to create further challenges in obtaining regulatory approval. For example, to our knowledge, the FDA has not previously reviewed regulatory applications for the commercial development of CAR T cells for treatment of autoimmune disease or CAAR T cells for treatment of pemphigus, and there is no cell therapy currently approved by the FDA for the treatment of mPV or MuSK myasthenia gravis. Because of this, we have little guidance as to which endpoints will be accepted, how many clinical trials we may expect to conduct, and whether open-label clinical trials will be deemed acceptable, among other things. We may also request regulatory approval of future CAR T or CAAR T cell-based product candidates by target, regardless of disease type or origin, which the FDA may have difficulty accepting if our clinical trials only involved diseases of certain origins. The FDA may also require a panel of experts, referred to as an Advisory Committee, to deliberate on the adequacy of the safety, potency and purity data to support licensure. The opinion of the Advisory Committee, although not binding, may have a significant impact on our ability to obtain licensure of the product candidates based on the completed clinical trials, as the FDA often adheres to the Advisory Committee’s recommendations. Further, given the rapidly evolving landscape of cell therapy, we could encounter a significant change in the regulatory environment for our product candidates once we have already begun one or more lengthy and expensive clinical trials for our product candidates. Accordingly, the regulatory approval pathway for our product candidates may be uncertain, complex, expensive and lengthy, and approval may not be obtained.

We may also experience delays in completing ongoing and planned clinical trials for a variety of reasons, including delays related to:

We could also encounter delays if physicians encounter unresolved ethical issues associated with enrolling patients in clinical trials of our product candidates in lieu of prescribing existing treatments that have established safety and efficacy profiles. If we experience delays in the completion of, any future clinical trial of our product candidates, the commercial prospects for our product candidates will be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenue will be delayed. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our product development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue. Many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates.

78

We expect the product candidates we develop will be regulated as biological products, or biologics, and therefore they may be subject to competition.

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, was enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively the ACA, to establish an abbreviated pathway for the approval of biosimilar and interchangeable biological products. The regulatory pathway establishes legal authority for the FDA to review and approve biosimilar biologics, including the possible designation of a biosimilar as “interchangeable” based on its similarity to a licensed biologic. Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product cannot be licensed by the FDA until 12 years after the reference product was licensed under a BLA. The law is complex and is still being interpreted and implemented by the FDA.

We believe that any of the product candidates we develop that is licensed in the United States as a biological product under a BLA should qualify for the 12-year period of exclusivity. However, there is a risk that this exclusivity could be shortened due to congressional action or otherwise, or that the FDA will not consider the subject product candidates to be reference products for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for generic competition sooner than anticipated. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar, once licensed, will be substituted for any one of the reference products in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biological products is not yet clear, and will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing.

The regulatory landscape that will govern our product candidates is uncertain; regulations relating to more established cell therapies and other therapies for B cell-mediated autoimmune diseases are still developing, and changes in regulatory requirements could result in delays or discontinuation of development of our product candidates or unexpected costs in obtaining regulatory approval.

Because we are developing novel CAR T and CAAR T cell product candidates that are unique biological entities, the regulatory requirements that we will be subject to are not entirely clear. Even with respect to more established products that fit into the categories of gene therapies or cell therapies, the regulatory landscape is still developing. For example, regulatory requirements governing gene therapy products and cell therapy products have changed frequently and may continue to change in the future. Moreover, there is substantial, and sometimes uncoordinated, overlap in those responsible for regulation of existing gene therapy products and cell therapy products. For example, in the United States, the FDA established the Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies, or OTAT, in 2016, within its Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, or CBER, to consolidate the review of gene therapy and related products, and the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to advise CBER on its review. In September 2022, the FDA announced retitling of OTAT to the Office of Therapeutic Products, or OTP, and elevation of OTP to a “Super Office” to meet its growing cell and gene therapy workload. In addition, under guidelines issued by the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, gene therapy clinical trials are also subject to review and oversight by an institutional biosafety committee, or IBC, a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees research utilizing recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules at that institution. Before a clinical trial can begin at any institution, that institution’s institutional review board, or IRB, and its IBC assesses the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment. While the NIH guidelines are not mandatory unless the research in question is being conducted at or sponsored by institutions receiving NIH funding of recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research, many companies and other institutions not otherwise subject to the NIH Guidelines voluntarily follow them. Although the FDA decides whether individual gene therapy protocols may proceed, review process and determinations of other reviewing bodies can impede or delay the initiation of a clinical study, even if the FDA has reviewed the study and approved its initiation. Conversely, the FDA can place an IND application on clinical hold even if such other entities have provided a favorable review. Furthermore, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an independent IRB at or servicing each institution at which a clinical trial will be conducted. In addition, adverse developments in clinical trials of gene therapy products conducted by others may cause the FDA or other regulatory bodies to change the requirements for approval of any of our product candidates.

Complex regulatory environments exist in other jurisdictions in which we might consider seeking regulatory approvals for our product candidates, further complicating the regulatory landscape. For example, in the European Union, a special committee called the Committee for Advanced Therapies was established within the EMA in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 on advanced-therapy medicinal products, or ATMPs, to assess the quality, safety and efficacy of ATMPs, and to follow scientific developments in the field. ATMPs include gene therapy products as well as somatic cell therapy products and tissue engineered products. These various regulatory review committees and advisory groups and new or revised guidelines that they promulgate from time to time may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional studies, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of our product candidates or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions. Because the regulatory landscape for our CAR T and CAAR T cell product candidates is new, we may face even more cumbersome and complex regulations than those emerging for gene therapy products and cell therapy products. Furthermore, even if our product candidates obtain required regulatory approvals, such approvals may later be withdrawn because of changes in regulations or the interpretation of regulations by applicable regulatory agencies. Delay or failure to obtain, or unexpected

79

costs in obtaining, the regulatory approval necessary to bring a potential product to market could decrease our ability to generate sufficient product revenue to maintain our business.

If we are not able to obtain, or if there are delays in obtaining, required regulatory approvals for our product candidates, we will not be able to commercialize, or will be delayed in commercializing, our product candidates, and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.

Our product candidates and the activities associated with their development and commercialization, including their design, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale, distribution, import and export are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory agencies in the United States. Before we can commercialize any of our product candidates, we must obtain marketing approval. We have not received approval to market any of our product candidates from regulatory authorities in any jurisdiction and it is possible that none of our product candidates or any product candidates we may seek to develop in the future will ever obtain regulatory approval. We, as a company, have no experience in filing and supporting the applications necessary to gain regulatory approvals and expect to rely on third-party CROs and/or regulatory consultants to assist us in this process. Securing regulatory approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to the various regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the drug candidate’s safety, potency and purity.