IMTX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i

ii

PRESENTATION OF FINANCIAL AND OTHER INFORMATION

Unless otherwise stated or the context otherwise indicates, (i) references to the “company”, “we”, “our” or “us” refer to Immatics N.V., together with its subsidiaries, including Immatics Biotechnologies GmbH; (ii) references to “Immatics” refer solely to Immatics N.V.; and (iii) references to “Immatics OpCo” refer solely to Immatics Biotechnologies GmbH. Immatics N.V. is a Dutch public limited liability company (naamloze vennootschap) incorporated on March 10, 2020 and the holding company of Immatics Biotechnologies GmbH, a German biopharmaceutical company incorporated in 2000 focused on the development of T cell receptor-based immunotherapies for the treatment of cancer. Immatics Biotechnologies GmbH holds all material assets and conducts all business activities and operations of Immatics N.V.

Trademarks, Service Marks

The Immatics logo , Immatics^®, XPRESIDENT^®, ACTengine^®, ACTallo^®, ACTolog^®, XCEPTOR^®, TCER^®, AbsQuant^®, IMADetect^® and other trademarks or service marks of Immatics appearing in this filing (“Annual Report”) are the property of the company. Solely for convenience, some of the trademarks, service marks, logos and trade names referred to in this Annual Report are presented without the ^® and ^TM symbols, but such references are not intended to indicate, in any way, that we will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, our rights or the rights of the applicable licensors to these trademarks, service marks and trade names. This Annual Report contains additional trademarks, service marks and trade names of others. All trademarks, service marks and trade names appearing in this Annual Report are, to our knowledge, the property of their respective owners. We do not intend our use or display of other companies’ trademarks, service marks, copyrights or trade names to imply a relationship with, or endorsement or sponsorship of us by, any other companies.

Financial Information

The terms “dollar,” “USD” or “$” refer to the U.S. dollar and the term “euro,” “EUR” or “€” refer to the euro, unless otherwise indicated. The exchange rate used for conversion between U.S. dollars and euros is based on the ECB euro reference exchange rate published by the European Central Bank.

Our consolidated financial statements are presented in euros and have been prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (“IFRS”). None of the consolidated financial statements were prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (“U.S. GAAP”). We have made rounding adjustments to some of the figures included in this Annual Report. Accordingly, any numerical discrepancies in any table between totals and sums of the amounts listed are due to rounding.

Market and Industry Data

This Annual Report contains industry, market and competitive position data that are based on general and industry publications, surveys and studies conducted by third parties, some of which may not be publicly available, and our own internal estimates and research. Third-party publications, surveys and studies generally state that they have obtained information from sources believed to be reliable, but do not guarantee the accuracy and completeness of such information. These data involve a number of assumptions and limitations and contain projections and estimates of the future performance of the industries in which we operate.

iii

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report contains forward-looking statements regarding our current expectations or forecasts of future events. All statements other than statements of historical facts contained in this Annual Report, including statements regarding our future results of operations and financial position, business strategy, product candidates, research pipeline, ongoing and planned preclinical studies and clinical trials, regulatory submissions and approvals, research and development costs, timing and likelihood of success, as well as plans and objectives of management for future operations are forward-looking statements. Many of the forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report can be identified by the use of forward-looking words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “could,” “expect,” “should,” “plan,” “intend,” “estimate,” “will” and “potential,” among others. These forward-looking statements include:

iv

These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this Annual Report and are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and assumptions described under the sections in this Annual Report titled “Item 3. Key Information—D. Risk Factors” and “Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects” and elsewhere in this Annual Report. Because forward-looking statements are inherently subject to risks and uncertainties, some of which cannot be predicted or quantified and some of which are beyond our control, you should not rely on these forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. The events and circumstances reflected in our forward-looking statements may not be achieved or occur and actual results could differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Moreover, we operate in an evolving environment. New risk factors and uncertainties may emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for management to predict all risk factors and uncertainties. Except as required by applicable law, we do not plan to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements contained herein, whether as a result of any new information, future events, changed circumstances or otherwise.

In addition, statements that “we believe” and similar statements reflect our beliefs and opinions on the relevant subject. These statements are based upon information available to us as of the date of this Annual Report, and while we believe such information forms a reasonable basis for such statements, such information may be limited or incomplete, and our statements should not be read to indicate that we have conducted an exhaustive inquiry into, or review of, all potentially available relevant information. These statements are inherently uncertain and investors are cautioned not to unduly rely upon these statements.

v

PART I

A. Directors and Senior Management

Not applicable.

B. Advisers

Not applicable.

C. Auditors

Not applicable.

A. Offer Statistics

Not applicable.

B. Method and Expected Timetable

Not applicable.

A. [Reserved]

B. Capitalization and Indebtedness

Not applicable.

C. Reasons for the Offer and Use of Proceeds

Not applicable.

D. Risk Factors

Risk Factors Summary

Our business faces significant risks and uncertainties. You should carefully consider all of the information set forth in this Annual Report and in other documents we file with or furnish to the SEC, including the following risk factors, before deciding to invest in or to maintain an investment in our securities. Our business, as well as our reputation, financial condition, results of operations and share price, could be materially adversely affected by any of these risks, as well as other risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or not currently considered material. These risks include, among others, the following:

1

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital

We have a history of operating losses and expect to continue to incur losses.

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company active in the development and discovery of potential T cell redirecting immunotherapies for the treatment of cancer. We have no products approved for commercial sale and have not generated revenue from operations. We have incurred net losses in each year since inception except for the year ended December 31, 2022, as a result of our having received upfront payments from our licensing agreements which we have recorded partially as a one-time revenue under revenue recognition guidelines. As of December 31, 2022, we had accumulated consolidated losses of €500.3 million. We do not expect to generate any meaningful revenue from commercializing products for the foreseeable future. We expect to incur significant additional operating losses in the future as we continue and expand our research and development efforts for our product candidates.

We do not know when or whether we will become profitable. To become and remain profitable, we must succeed in developing, obtaining regulatory approval for and commercializing one or more of our product candidates. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including completing preclinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates, discovering and developing additional product candidates, making regulatory submissions, obtaining regulatory approval for any product candidates that successfully complete clinical trials, establishing commercialization capabilities for any approved products, manufacturing any approved products and achieving market acceptance for any approved products. We may never succeed in these activities. Even if we succeed in these activities, we may never generate revenue in an amount sufficient to achieve profitability.

2

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with biotechnology product development and commercialization, we are unable to accurately predict whether and when we will achieve profitability.

Even if we achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain profitability in subsequent periods. After we achieve profitability, if ever, we expect to continue to engage in substantial research and development activities and to incur substantial expenses to develop, manufacture and commercialize additional product candidates. In addition, we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other unknown factors that may adversely affect our revenues, expenses and profitability.

Our failure to achieve or sustain profitability would depress our market value and could impair our ability to execute our business plan, raise capital, develop additional product candidates or continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company could cause our shareholders to lose all or part of their investment.

We will need additional capital to fund our operations and complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates. Our inability to obtain this capital when needed could force us to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development efforts.

Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since inception. The development of biotechnology product candidates is capital intensive and we expect that we will continue to expend substantial resources for the foreseeable future to develop and commercialize our current and future product candidates. Our expenditures in the foreseeable future may include costs associated with conducting research and development activities, conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals, undertaking commercialization activities, establishing our sales and marketing capabilities, manufacturing and selling approved products and potentially acquiring or in-licensing new technologies.

As of December 31, 2022, we had €362.2 million in cash and cash equivalents and other financial assets. We believe that we have sufficient financial resources available to fund our projected operating requirements for at least the next twelve months. Because the outcome of our current and planned clinical trials is highly uncertain, we cannot reasonably estimate the actual amounts necessary to successfully complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates. Our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to:

3

Additional funds may not be available when we need them or on terms that are acceptable to us. If adequate funds are not available to us on a timely basis or on terms acceptable to us, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our research and development efforts.

If we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, our existing shareholders’ ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms of such equity or convertible debt securities may include liquidation or other preferences that are senior to or otherwise adversely affect the rights of our existing shareholders. If we raise additional capital through the sale of debt securities or through entering into credit or loan facilities, we may be restricted in our ability to take certain actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures, acquiring or licensing intellectual property rights, declaring dividends or encumbering our assets to secure future indebtedness. Such restrictions could adversely impact our ability to conduct our operations and execute our business plan. If we raise additional capital through collaborations with third parties, we may be required to relinquish valuable rights to our intellectual property or product candidates or we may be required to grant licenses for our intellectual property or product candidates on unfavorable terms.

We are exposed to risks related to currency exchange rates.

We operate internationally and are exposed to fluctuations in foreign exchange rates between the euro and other currencies, particularly the U.S. dollar. Our reporting currency is the euro and, as a result, financial line items are converted into euros at the applicable foreign exchange rates. As our business grows, we expect that at least some of our revenues and expenses will continue to be denominated in currencies other than the euro. Unfavorable developments in the value of the euro relative to other relevant currencies, especially the U.S. dollar, could adversely affect our business and financial condition. In the past, we have seen USD-EUR exchange rate fluctuations, that materially impacted our Statement of Profit and Loss.

The use of net operating loss carryforwards may be limited.

Both Immatics OpCo and Immatics US, Inc. (“Immatics US”) incurred significant losses in the past and therefore are entitled to use net operating loss carryforwards. For the year ended December 31, 2022, we had German federal net operating loss carryforwards of €210.4 million and Immatics US had U.S. federal net operating loss carryforwards of €146.8 million. German federal net operating loss carryforwards and U.S. federal net operating loss carryforwards arising in taxable years ending after December 31, 2017 do not expire, whereas U.S. federal net operating loss carryforwards arising before or in taxable years ending December 31, 2017 will begin to expire in 2027. Limitation on tax loss carry forwards with respect to U.S. federal net operating losses is 80% of each subsequent year`s net income starting with losses generated after January 1, 2018 and with respect to German federal net operating losses, 60% of each subsequent year`s net income. These have an indefinite carry forward period, but no carry back option. The operating loss carryforwards are subject to various

4

limitations, including limitations under Sections 382 and 383 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) if Immatics US has a cumulative change in ownership of more than 50% within a three-year period. Further, due to our limited income, there is a high risk that our operating loss carryforwards will expire in part and cannot be used to offset future taxable income.

Furthermore, any net operating loss carryforwards that we report on our tax returns are subject to review by the relevant tax authorities. Consequently, we are exposed to the risk that the tax authorities may not accept the reported net operating loss carryforwards in part or in their entirety. Any limitations in our ability to use net operating loss carryforwards to offset taxable income could adversely affect our financial condition.

Risks Related to the Development of Our Product Candidates

Our product candidates represent novel approaches to the treatment of diseases, and there are many uncertainties regarding the development of our product candidates.

Human immunotherapy products are a new category of therapeutics. Because this is a relatively new and expanding area of novel therapeutic interventions, there are many uncertainties related to development of our product candidates. There can be no assurance as to the number of required clinical trials, the length of the trial period, the number of patients the FDA, the EMA or comparable regulatory authorities will require to be enrolled in the trials in order to establish the safety and efficacy of immunotherapy products, or that the data generated in these trials will be acceptable to the FDA, the EMA or comparable regulatory authorities to support marketing approval. The FDA, the EMA and comparable regulatory authorities may take longer than usual to come to a decision on any BLA, MAA or similar marketing application that we submit and may ultimately determine that there is not enough data, information or experience with our product candidates to support an approval decision. Regulatory authorities may also require that we conduct additional post-marketing studies or implement risk management programs.

Our current product candidates are in various stages of development, and it is possible that none of our product candidates will ever become commercial products.

Our success depends heavily on the successful further development of our current and future product candidates and our research pipeline and regulatory approval of our current and future product candidates, all of which are subject to risks and uncertainties beyond our control. We are conducting clinical trials for IMA201, IMA203 and IMA401 and preclinical studies for our other product candidates. However, the FDA, the EMA and comparable regulatory authorities may ultimately disagree that data generated from our clinical trials are sufficient for regulatory approval. There can be no assurance that any of our product candidates will prove to be safe, effective or commercially viable treatments for cancer.

If we discontinue development of a product candidate, we will not receive the anticipated revenues from that product candidate, and we may not receive any return on our investment in that product candidate. In the future, we may discontinue other product candidates for clinical reasons if such product candidates do not prove to be safe and effective. Any unexpected safety events or our failure to generate sufficient data in our clinical trials to demonstrate efficacy may cause a product candidate to fail clinical development. Furthermore, even if that product candidate meets its safety and efficacy endpoints, we may discontinue its development for various reasons, such as changes in the competitive environment or the standard of care and the prioritization of our resources.

We may also find that the development of a companion diagnostic for our product candidates is more difficult or more expensive than anticipated, resulting in an inability to provide the required diagnostic testing for our clinical trials, or if approved, for the market. Moreover, because of the complexity and novelty of our companion diagnostic biomarker, there are only a limited number of providers who have the capability of supporting the development of a companion diagnostic. Should any of our clinical research organizations (“CROs”) fail to meet our development goals, it may take us significant time to find a replacement, if we are able to find a replacement at all.

5

Due to the uncertain and time-consuming clinical development and regulatory approval process, we may not successfully develop any of our product candidates and may choose to discontinue the development of any of our product candidates. Therefore, it is possible that none of our current product candidates will ever become commercial products. Our failure to develop and commercialize our current and future product candidates could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

Delays in the commencement and completion of clinical trials could increase costs and delay or prevent regulatory approval and commercialization of our product candidates.

We cannot guarantee that clinical trials of our product candidates will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of the clinical trial process, and other events may cause us to temporarily or permanently stop a clinical trial. Events that may prevent successful or timely commencement and completion of clinical development include:

6

Delays, including delays caused by the above factors, can be costly and could negatively affect our ability to complete a clinical trial. Further, there can be no assurance that submission of an IND, IND amendment or CTA will result in the FDA or any comparable regulatory authority allowing testing and clinical trials to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that suspend or terminate such clinical trials. The manufacturing and preclinical safety and efficacy testing requirements of both ACT and TCR Bispecifics remain emerging and evolving fields. Accordingly, we expect chemistry, manufacturing and control related topics, including product specification, as well as preclinical safety testing, will be a focus of IND reviews, which may delay the allowance of INDs by the FDA or CTA approval by comparable regulatory authorities. If we are not able to successfully complete clinical trials, we will not be able to obtain regulatory approval and will not be able to commercialize our product candidates.

If we experience delays or difficulties in patient enrollment for clinical trials, our research and development efforts and the receipt of necessary regulatory approvals could be significantly delayed or prevented.

Commencement and successful and timely completion of clinical trials require us to enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials as required by the FDA, the EMA or comparable regulatory authorities. Any delay or difficulty in patient enrollment could significantly delay or otherwise hinder our research and development efforts and delay or prevent receipt of necessary regulatory approvals. Despite diligent planning of our clinical trials and analysis of their feasibility regarding patient recruitment, we may experience difficulties, delays or inability in patient enrollment in our clinical trials for a variety of reasons, including:

7

Not all patients suffering from a specific cancer that is in principle addressable by our product candidates are eligible for our clinical trials and therapies. First, patients must express a specific genetic marker called HLA-A*02. While this marker is found on approximately 40-50% of individuals in North America and Europe, it is less frequent in other populations, such as China or Japan. If human leukocyte antigen (“HLA”) screening for a patient shows that HLA-A*02 is not expressed, he or she cannot be treated with our current product candidates. Second, the prevalence of the targets addressed by IMA201, IMA203 and IMA401 differs between different tumor entities. For a given patient, a biomarker assay must be performed in order to find out whether he or she expresses one of the targets and can be treated with one of our product candidates. We cannot be certain that the anticipated and assumed target prevalence rates are confirmed in the patient populations of our clinical trials, and lower target prevalence rates may be experienced. Third, further eligibility criteria are in place to ensure that the patients can tolerate and potentially benefit from the treatment. Thus, only a few of the patients screened for our clinical trials will receive cellular or TCR Bispecifics products. Patients may therefore be hesitant to consent to our trials, and overall, many more patients will have to be screened to treat the targeted number of patients. It is uncertain how many more patients we will be required to screen. If the required number of patient screenings is much higher than anticipated, our clinical trial costs may increase. To mitigate this risk, we are testing several tumor targets in parallel in our clinical trials and have further product candidates against other HLA-types in early preclinical development. However, we cannot be certain whether this will be successful and effective in enhancing recruitment.

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 eligible patients may instead opt to enroll in a competitor’s trial. Because the number of qualified clinical investigators is limited, we expect to conduct some of our clinical trials at the same clinical trial sites that some of our competitors use, which will reduce the number of patients who are available for our clinical trials at such clinical trial sites. Enrolling patients at the same sites as our competitors may compromise the quality and conclusiveness of our clinical data by introducing bias. Moreover, because our product candidates represent a departure from more commonly used methods for cancer treatment, potential patients and their doctors may be inclined to use conventional therapies, such as chemotherapy and approved immunotherapies, rather than enroll patients in any clinical trial. In addition, potential enrollees in our ACT trials with IMA201 or IMA203 may opt to participate in other clinical trials because of the length of time between the time that their tumor is analyzed, and the cellular product is manufactured and infused back into the patient. Challenges in recruiting and enrolling suitable patients to participate in clinical trials could increase costs, affect the timing and outcome of our planned clinical trials and result in delays to our current development plan for our product candidates.

Clinical trials are expensive, time-consuming and difficult to design and implement, and our clinical trial costs may be higher than for more conventional therapeutic technologies or drug products.

Clinical trials are expensive and difficult to design, implement and conduct, in part because they are subject to rigorous regulatory requirements. Because our ACT product candidates are based on new cell therapy

8

technologies and manufactured on a patient-by-patient basis, we expect that such candidates will require extensive research and development and have substantial manufacturing costs per dose. Our TCR Bispecific product candidates also require extensive research and development, as the applicable technology is new and experience with developing such biologics is rare in the field. Moreover, the development of a companion diagnostic will also require extensive research and development, and such companion diagnostic must be suitable to support both enrollment into larger clinical trials and routine hospital procedures after marketing approval. Any failure or delay in developing a suitable companion diagnostic will delay or make it impossible to conduct larger clinical trials for ACT product candidates and/or TCR Bispecific product candidates.

In addition, costs to treat patients with recurrent and/or refractory cancer and to treat potential side effects that may result from our product candidates, non-investigational medicinal products, rescue or prophylactic medication applied in our clinical trials can be significant. Some clinical trial sites do not bill or obtain coverage from Medicare, Medicaid, health insurance or other third-party payors for some or all of these costs for patients enrolled in our clinical trials, and we can be required by those trial sites to pay such costs. In countries outside the United States, we expect that all costs related to the clinical trial and to the management of study patients (for example, management of adverse reactions or hospitalization) are paid by the sponsor of the clinical trial. As trial designs for development of our product candidates are complex, our clinical trial costs are likely to be significantly higher per patient than those of more conventional therapeutic technologies or drug products. At some point, we may combine two or more of our ACT or TCR Bispecific product candidates within one clinical trial or within a multi-TCR-T or multi-TCR Bispecifics concept in order to enhance clinical efficacy results and to increase the patient population. The setup and conduct of such multi-TCR-T or multi-TCR Bispecifics clinical trials is expensive and may bear unknown risks, such as regulatory, preclinical, safety and manufacturing risks. In addition, our proposed personalized product candidates involve several complex and costly manufacturing and processing steps, the costs of which will be borne by us. We are also responsible for the manufacturing costs of products for patients that do not receive the product due to any reason (for example, rapid degradation of general health status, not meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria for infusion). Depending on the number of patients that we ultimately screen and enroll in our trials, the number of trials that we may need to conduct, and the companion diagnostic we need to develop, our overall clinical trial costs may be higher than for more conventional treatments.

Our product candidates may cause undesirable side effects or have other properties that may delay or prevent their development or regulatory approval or limit their commercial potential.

Undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates or by similar product candidates developed by others could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in more restrictive labeling or the denial of regulatory approval by the FDA, the EMA or comparable regulatory authorities and potential product liability claims.

In our cell therapy clinical trials, most commonly reported Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (“TEAEs”) were cytopenias. In addition, we have observed dose-limiting toxicities (“DLT”). There can be no assurance that patients treated with our product candidates will not experience these and other serious adverse side effects and there can be no assurance that the FDA, the EMA or comparable regulatory authorities will not place clinical holds on our current or future clinical trials, the result of which could delay or prevent us from obtaining regulatory approval. In particular, our clinical trials enroll patients who have failed all available standard-of-care treatments. As a result, these patients may be immunocompromised and thus are more susceptible to serious adverse side effects. In addition, certain of our protocols involve further weakening of patients’ immune response (e.g., through lymphodepletion) prior to receiving our product candidates, which may further increase the severity and frequency of serious adverse side effects.

Further, because our product candidates represent novel approaches to the treatment of cancer, we may be less able to predict the nature, severity and frequency of adverse events and thus less able to undertake measures

9

to prevent serious adverse events and mitigate their effects. For example, infused T cells may be more active than we expect or than we previously observed. Moreover, because our ACTengine product candidates for a specific patient are manufactured using that patient’s white blood cells, each patient receives an individually manufactured ACTengine product candidate. As a result, it may be difficult to predict how a patient will respond to that individualized product candidate.

This could lead to more severe or prolonged toxicities or even patient deaths, which could result in us or the FDA, the EMA or comparable regulatory authorities delaying, suspending or terminating one or more of our clinical trials and which could jeopardize regulatory approval.

Furthermore, 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. In addition, some of our product candidates are developed or intended to be used in combination with other therapies. When used in combination, the severity and frequency of undesirable side effects may be greater than the cumulative severity and frequency of such side effects when the therapies are used as monotherapies and the nature of undesirable side effects may be different than such side effects when the therapies are used as monotherapies.

If we or others identify undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates or those of our competitors, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining regulatory approval and market acceptance of our product candidates and could substantially increase commercialization costs.

Results from preclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials may not be predictive of results from late-stage or other clinical trials.

Positive and promising results from preclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials may not be predictive of results from late-stage clinical trials or from clinical trials of the same product candidates. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. Late-stage clinical trials could differ in significant ways from early-stage clinical trials, including changes to inclusion and exclusion criteria, efficacy endpoints, dosing regimen and statistical design. In particular, we expect there may be greater variability in results for products

10

processed and administered on a patient-by-patient basis, as for our cellular therapy product candidates, than for “off-the-shelf” products, like many other drugs. Therefore, despite positive results observed in early-stage clinical trials, our product candidates may fail to demonstrate sufficient efficacy in our pivotal or confirmatory clinical trials.

Preliminary interim or “top-line” data that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more data become available and are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data.

From time to time, we may announce or publish preliminary interim or “top-line” data from clinical trials. Positive preliminary data may not be predictive of such trial’s subsequent or overall results. Preliminary data are subject to the risk that one or more of the outcomes may materially change as more data become available. Additionally, preliminary data 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.

For example, our studies of cellular therapies in patients without any indicated standard-of-care treatment utilize an “open-label, single arm, dose-escalation/de-escalation” trial design. This trial design has the potential to create selection bias by encouraging the investigators to enrol a more favorable patient population (for example, indications better suitable for immunotherapies, fitter patients, fewer prior therapies) compared to a broader patient population. In our current Phase 1 clinical trials, investigators have significant discretion over the selection of patient participants. As the trials continue, the investigators may prioritize patients with more progressed forms of cancer and/or worse general health condition than the initial patient population, based on the safety/success or perceived safety/success of that initial population. Patients with more progressed forms of cancer or worse general health conditions may experience more and/or worse adverse events or be less responsive to treatment, and accordingly, interim or final safety and efficacy data may show an increase in frequency or severity of adverse events and/or a decline in patient response rate or change in other assessment metrics. As the trials continue or in subsequent trials, investigators may shift their approach to the patient population, which may ultimately experience more and/or worse adverse events and/or result in a decline in both interim and final efficacy data from the preliminary data, or conversely, a decrease in frequency and/or severity of adverse events or an increase in final efficacy data following a decline in the interim efficacy data, as patients with more progressed forms of cancer or worse general health condition are cycled out of the trials and replaced by patients with less advanced forms of cancer or with better general health conditions. This opportunity for investigator selection bias in our trials as a result of open-label design, which is standard in dose-escalation/de-escalation trials, may not be adequately handled and may cause a decline in or distortion of clinical trial data from our preliminary results.

Therefore, positive preliminary results in any ongoing clinical trial may not be predictive of such results in the completed 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 evaluate all data. As a result, preliminary data that we report may differ from future results from the same clinical trials, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Preliminary 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, preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Material adverse changes in the final data compared to preliminary data could significantly harm our business prospects.

The deviations in our proposed new products from existing products may require us to perform additional testing, which will increase the cost, and extend the time for obtaining approval.

Our ACT based therapy is based on first-generation adoptive cell therapy technology suitable for delivering for small, early-phase clinical trials. While we have implemented advancements to the process, the current methods of treatment are very labor intensive and expensive, which has limited their widespread application. We

11

have developed new processes that we anticipate will enable more efficient manufacturing of ACT. We may have difficulty demonstrating that the products produced from our new processes are comparable to the existing products. The FDA, the EMA and comparable regulatory authorities may require additional clinical testing before permitting a larger clinical trial with the new processes, and the product may not demonstrate the desired activity in new clinical trials. In the manufacturing of cellular products, even small changes in manufacturing processes could alter the cell types, so our ability to predict the outcomes with newer manufacturing processes is limited. The changes that we have made to the historical manufacturing process may require additional testing, which may increase costs and timelines associated with these developments.

Our TCR Bispecific product candidates contain features that have not been previously tested in this composition in clinical trials or marketed products. The FDA, the EMA and comparable regulatory authorities may require additional non-clinical studies before permitting us to enter clinical trials with our product candidates. Regulatory authorities may also ask for additional early-stage trials or production of additional batches of TCR Bispecific product candidates before permitting larger clinical trials or registration trials. To comply with those requests would increase costs and timelines for the development of our TCR Bispecific product candidates.

Risks Related to Regulatory Approval of Our Product Candidates

The regulatory review and approval processes of the FDA, the EMA and comparable regulatory authorities are lengthy, time-consuming and uncertain. If we are unable to obtain, or if there are delays in obtaining, regulatory approval for our product candidates, we will not be able to commercialize our product candidates and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.

Our product candidates must be approved by the FDA in the United States, by the EMA in the European Union and by comparable regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions prior to commercialization. In order to obtain regulatory approval for the commercial sale of any product candidates, we must demonstrate through extensive preclinical studies and clinical trials that the product candidate is safe and effective for use in each target indication and that manufacturing of the product candidate is robust and reproducible. The time required to obtain approval by the FDA, the EMA and comparable regulatory authorities is uncertain, typically takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials and depends upon numerous factors. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that any of our product candidates will receive regulatory approval in the United States, the European Union or other jurisdictions.

Regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process. They may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data are insufficient for approval and require additional clinical trials or other studies. We expect the novel nature of our product candidates to create additional challenges in obtaining regulatory approval. For example, the FDA has limited experience with commercial development of T cell directed therapies for cancer. Therefore, even if we believe the data collected from clinical trials of our product candidates are promising, such data may not be sufficient to support approval by the FDA, the EMA or any comparable regulatory authority. If we are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of any of our product candidates beyond those that are contemplated, we may incur significant additional costs and the regulatory approval of our product candidates may be delayed or prevented. Furthermore, additional clinical trials or other testing could shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates and could allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do, which may prevent the successful commercialization of our product candidates.

Furthermore, the process and time required to obtain regulatory approval differ by jurisdiction. In many countries outside the United States, a drug must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that country. Approval by one regulatory authority does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. Obtaining foreign regulatory approvals and compliance with foreign regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our

12

products in certain countries. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets and/or receive applicable marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our product candidates will be harmed.

Moreover, principal investigators for our clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and receive compensation in connection with such services at market rates. Under certain circumstances, we may be required to report some of these relationships to the FDA, the EMA or comparable regulatory authorities, which could conclude that a financial relationship between us and a principal investigator has created a conflict of interest or otherwise affected the integrity of the study. The FDA, the EMA or comparable regulatory authorities may, therefore, question the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site, and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized. This could delay, or result in the rejection of, our marketing applications.

Applications for regulatory approval and regulatory approval of our product candidates could be delayed or be denied for many reasons, including but not limited to the following:

Any of these factors, some of which are beyond our control, may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval for any of our product candidates, which would significantly harm our business, financial condition and prospects.

13

The regulatory landscape that will govern our product candidates is still evolving. Regulations relating to more established gene therapy and cell therapy products and TCR Bispecific products 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 cell immunotherapy product candidates that are unique biological entities, the regulatory requirements to which we will be subject are not entirely clear and may change rapidly. 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 become more stringent and comprehensive frequently and may continue to extend 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 has established the Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies (“OTAT”), formerly known as the Office of Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies (“OCTGT”), within its Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (“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. Gene therapy clinical trials in the U.S. are also subject to review and oversight by an institutional biosafety committee (“IBC”), a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees basic and clinical research conducted at the institution participating in the clinical trial. Similar regulatory bodies exist in Europe and other jurisdictions. In addition, adverse developments in clinical trials of gene therapy products conducted by others may cause the FDA, the EMA and comparable regulatory authorities to change the requirements for approval of any of our product candidates.

While there is already a T cell engaging bispecific molecule approved and regulatory guidelines have been issued for this class of drugs, bispecific therapeutics are still new in the field and regulators have even less experience with TCR Bispecifics. Thus, guidance for development and regulatory approval of such drugs may change.

Complex regulatory environments exist in the different 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 (“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 cell immunotherapy product candidates is new, our product candidates may face even more cumbersome and complex regulations than those emerging for other gene therapy products and cell therapy products. Furthermore, even if our product candidates obtain required regulatory approvals, such approvals may later be revoked, suspended or otherwise withdrawn as a result of changes in regulations or the interpretation of regulations by applicable regulatory agencies. Delay or failure to obtain, or unexpected 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.

Development of a product candidate intended for use in combination with an already approved product may present more or different challenges than development of a product candidate for use as a single agent.

We evaluate our ACT and TCR Bispecifics product candidates in combination with other therapies, such as checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapies. The development of product candidates for use in combination with

14

another product may present challenges. For example, the FDA may require us to use more complex clinical trial designs, in order to evaluate the contribution of each product and product candidate to any observed effects. It is possible that the results of these trials could show that most or any positive results are attributable to the already approved product. Moreover, following product approval, the FDA may require that products used in conjunction with each other be cross-labelled. To the extent that we do not have rights to already approved products, this may require us to work with another company to satisfy such a requirement. Moreover, developments related to the already approved products may impact our clinical trials for the combination as well as our commercial prospects should we receive marketing approval. Such developments may include changes to the approved product’s safety or efficacy profile, changes to the availability of the approved product, and changes to the standard of care.

The FDA may disagree with our regulatory plan and we may fail to obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates.

If and when our ongoing Phase 1 clinical trials for IMA203 and/or IMA401 are completed and, assuming positive data, we expect to advance to potential registrational trials, either directly or following a Phase 2 trial.

If the trial results are sufficiently compelling, we intend to discuss with the FDA a BLA submission for the relevant product candidate. Further, we plan to have discussions with other authorities, such as the EMA or Health Canada regarding any planned marketing authorization submissions. It cannot be guaranteed that FDA, the EMA and other regulatory authorities will agree to move to a registrational trial on the basis of data generated and may ask for additional data. Even if the FDA, the EMA or other regulatory authorities agrees with the design and implementation of the clinical trials set forth in an IND and CTA, we cannot guarantee that the regulatory authorities will not change their requirements in the future. For example, the regulatory authorities may require that we conduct a comparative trial against an approved therapy including potentially an approved autologous T cell therapy, which would significantly delay our development timelines and require substantially more resources. In addition, the regulatory authorities may only allow us to evaluate patients that have already failed autologous therapy or very late-stage patients, which are extremely difficult patients to treat and patients with advanced and aggressive cancer, and our product candidates may fail to improve outcomes for such patients.

Certain of our current clinical trials are being conducted outside the United States, and the FDA may not accept data from trials conducted in foreign locations.

Certain current clinical trials of our drug candidates are being conducted or planned to be conducted partially or fully outside the United States. We may also conduct future clinical trials for our drug candidates partially or fully outside the United States. Although the FDA may accept data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States, acceptance of this data is subject to certain conditions imposed by the FDA. For example, the clinical trial must be well designed and conducted and performed by qualified investigators in accordance with ethical principles and good clinical practice (“GCP”) requirements. Further, the data must be applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice in ways that the FDA deems clinically meaningful. In general, the patient population for any clinical trials conducted outside of the United States must be representative of the population for whom we intend to label the product in the United States. In addition, while these clinical trials are subject to the applicable local laws, FDA acceptance of the data will be dependent upon its determination that the trials also complied with all applicable U.S. laws and regulations.

There can be no assurance that the FDA will accept data from trials conducted outside of the United States. If the FDA does not accept the data from such clinical trials, it would likely result in the need for additional clinical trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and delay or permanently halt our development of our product candidates.

15

We may seek accelerated approval for some of our product candidates, which may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process and does not increase the likelihood that the product candidates will receive marketing approval.

We may attempt to seek approval on a per indication basis for our product candidates on the basis of a single pivotal trial or on the basis of data from one or more uncontrolled trials. While the FDA requires in most cases two adequate and well-controlled pivotal clinical trials to demonstrate the efficacy of a product candidate, a single trial with strong confirmatory evidence may be sufficient in instances where the trial is a large multicenter trial demonstrating internal consistency and a statistically very persuasive finding of a clinically meaningful effect on mortality, irreversible morbidity or prevention of a disease with a potentially serious outcome and if confirmation of the result in a second trial would be practically or ethically impossible. In rare cancer indications with very limited treatment options, a large and/or controlled trial is often not feasible and thus data from smaller and even uncontrolled trials may be sufficient for regulatory approval. It is difficult for us to predict with such a novel technology exactly what will be required by the regulatory authorities in order to take our product candidates to market or the timeframes under which the relevant regulatory approvals can be obtained.

For treatments granted accelerated approval, post-marketing confirmatory clinical trials are required to describe the anticipated effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. These confirmatory clinical trials must be completed with due diligence and, in some cases, the FDA may require that the trial be designed, initiated and/or fully enrolled prior to approval. If any of our competitors were to receive full approval on the basis of a confirmatory clinical trial for an indication for which we seek accelerated approval before we receive accelerated approval, the indication we are seeking may no longer qualify as a condition for which there is an unmet medical end and accelerated approval of our product candidate would be more difficult. Moreover, the FDA may withdraw approval of our product candidate approved under the accelerated approval pathway if, for example:

Recently, the accelerated approval pathway has come under scrutiny within the FDA and by Congress. The FDA has put increased focus on ensuring that confirmatory studies are conducted with diligence and, ultimately, that such studies confirm the benefit. For example, FDA has convened its Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee to review what the FDA has called dangling or delinquent accelerated approvals where confirmatory studies have not been completed or where results did not confirm benefit. In addition, Congress recently enacted the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act (“FDORA”), which included provisions related to the accelerated approval pathway and authorizes the FDA to require a post-approval study to be underway prior to approval or within a specified time period following approval.

We may pursue orphan drug designation for certain of our product candidates, which we may not receive, and even if we receive such designation, we may be unable to maintain the associated benefits.

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States and the European Union, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs.

In the United States, orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and user fee waivers. In addition, if a product receives

16

the first FDA approval for the indication for which it has orphan designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means the FDA may not approve any other application to market the same biologic (meaning, a product with the same principal molecular structural features) for that indication for a period of seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority over the product with orphan exclusivity or where the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient product quantity. In the European Union, orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and ten years of market exclusivity for the orphan indication following drug or biological product approval, provided that the criteria for orphan designation are still applicable at the time of the granting of the marketing authorization. This period may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, the orphan drug designation criteria are no longer met, including where it is shown that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. However, orphan drug designation neither shortens the development time or regulatory review time of a drug or therapeutic biologic nor gives the drug or therapeutic biologic any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process.

We may pursue orphan drug designation for one or more of our product candidates. However, obtaining an orphan drug designation can be difficult, and we may not be successful in doing so. Even if we obtain orphan drug designation for our product candidates in specific indications, we may not be the first to obtain regulatory approval of these product candidates for the orphan-designated indication. In addition, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be limited if we seek approval for an indication broader than the orphan-designated indication or may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. Furthermore, even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because a different biologic (with different principal molecular structural features) can be approved for the same condition. Even after an orphan product is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve the same biologic for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later biologic is safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. Our inability to obtain orphan drug designation for any product candidates for the treatment of rare cancers and/or our inability to maintain that designation for the duration of the applicable exclusivity period, could reduce our ability to make sufficient sales of the applicable product candidate to balance our expenses incurred to develop it.

Breakthrough Therapy Designation, Fast Track Designation and Priority Review Designation by the FDA, or comparable designations by comparable regulatory authorities, for our product candidates may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process and do not increase the likelihood that a product candidate would receive regulatory approval.

We do not currently have Breakthrough Therapy Designation, Fast Track Designation or Priority Review Designation or comparable designations by comparable regulatory authorities for our product candidates. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a product candidate that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over currently approved therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For product candidates that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor can help to identify the most efficient path for development. A Fast Track Designation may be available if a product candidate is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and preclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address an unmet medical need for this condition. Priority review may be granted for products that are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety and effectiveness compared to available therapies. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review.

In Europe, the EMA has implemented the so-called “PRIME” (PRIority MEdicines) status in order support the development and accelerate the approval of complex innovative medicinal products addressing an unmet

17

medical need. The PRIME status enables early dialogue with the relevant EMA scientific committees and, possibly, some payers; and thus, reinforces the EMA’s scientific and regulatory support. It also opens accelerated assessment of the marketing authorization application (150 days instead of 210 days). The PRIME status, which is decided by the EMA, is reserved to medicines that may benefit from accelerated assessment, i.e., medicines of major interest from a public health perspective, in particular from a therapeutic innovation perspective and that target unmet medical need.

The FDA, the EMA and comparable regulatory authorities have broad discretion whether or not to grant Breakthrough Therapy Designation, Fast Track Designation and Priority Review Designation and comparable designations. Accordingly, even if we believe, after completing early clinical trials, that one of our product candidates meets the criteria for such designations, the applicable regulatory authority may disagree and instead determine not to make such designations. Even if we receive such designation for a product candidate, it may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional procedures and does not guarantee ultimate approval by the applicable regulatory authority. Many drugs that have received such designations have failed to obtain ultimate approval. In addition, the applicable regulatory authority may decide to rescind such designations if it determines that our product candidates no longer meet the conditions for qualification, including as a result of the product candidates’ failure to meet endpoints in any clinical trial.

We are required to comply with comprehensive and ongoing regulatory requirements for any product candidates that receive regulatory approval, including conducting confirmatory clinical trials of any product candidates that receive accelerated approval.

Any product candidates for which we receive accelerated approval from the FDA or similar conditional approval from the EMA or comparable regulatory authorities are required to undergo one or more confirmatory and post-marketing clinical trials. If such a product candidate fails to meet its safety and efficacy endpoints in such confirmatory and post-marketing clinical trials, the regulatory authority may withdraw its approval. There is no assurance that any such product will successfully advance through its confirmatory and post-marketing clinical trial(s).

Moreover, the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities will continue to closely monitor the safety profile of any product even after approval. If the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities become aware of new safety information after approval of any of our product candidates, they may withdraw approval, require labeling changes or establishment of a REMS or similar strategy, impose significant restrictions on a product’s indicated uses or marketing, or impose ongoing requirements for potentially costly post-approval studies or post-market surveillance.

In addition, any product candidates for which we receive regulatory approval in a particular jurisdiction and the activities associated with their commercialization, including testing, manufacture, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale and distribution, will be subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA, the EMA or comparable regulatory authorities. These requirements include, without limitation, submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration and listing requirements, the FDA’s cGMP and cGTPs requirements or comparable requirements in foreign jurisdictions, requirements relating to manufacturing, quality control, quality assurance and corresponding maintenance of records and documents, including periodic inspections by the FDA, the EMA or comparable regulatory authorities, requirements regarding the distribution of samples to physicians, tracking and reporting of payments to physicians and other healthcare providers and recordkeeping. In the United States, the FDA closely regulates the post-approval marketing and promotion of drugs to ensure drugs are marketed only for the approved indications and in a manner consistent with the provisions of the approved labeling. The FDA also imposes stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding use of their products and, if we promote our products beyond their approved indications or in a manner inconsistent with the approved labeling, we may be subject to enforcement action for off-label promotion. Violations of the U.S. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the “FDCA”) relating to the promotion of prescription drugs may lead to investigations alleging violations of federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws, as well as state consumer protection laws.

18

The policies of the FDA, the EMA and comparable regulatory authorities may change and additional regulations may be enacted. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or to the adoption of new requirements, or not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any regulatory approval that may have been obtained. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad, as the regulatory environment changes rapidly.

Risk Related to the Manufacturing of Our Product Candidates

Our product candidates are complex and difficult to manufacture. We could experience manufacturing problems that result in delays in our development or commercialization programs.

Our product candidates are cellular products or biologics and the process of manufacturing our products is complex, highly regulated and subject to multiple risks. The manufacture of our cellular product candidates involves complex processes, including, for example, for ACTengine genetically modified autologous T cell products (IMA201, IMA203, and IMA204), harvesting and transporting blood cells from every patient for T cell isolation, engineering of the T cells to express a specific T cell receptor for a tumor target, ex vivo multiplying the T cells to obtain the desired cell numbers for the dose, and finally transporting of the T cell product back to the patient for infusing the modified T cells back into the same patient. As a result of the complexities, the cost to manufacture cellular products per dose is generally higher than traditional small molecule chemical compounds or biologics, and the manufacturing process is less reliable, more variable and is more difficult to reproduce. Our manufacturing process may be susceptible to product loss or failure due to logistical issues associated with the collection of patients’ blood cells, shipping such material to the manufacturing site, shipping the final product back to the patient, and infusing the patient with the product. Product loss or failure may also be caused by manufacturing issues associated with the variability in patient starting material especially from heavily treated cancer patients, interruptions in the manufacturing process, contamination, equipment failure, assay failures, improper installation or operation of equipment, vendor or operator error, inconsistency in cell growth, and variability in product characteristics. Even minor deviations from normal manufacturing processes could result in reduced production yields, product defects, and other supply disruptions. If for any reason we lose a patient’s starting material, or any intermediate product at any point in the process, or if any product does not meet the present specifications, the manufacturing process for that patient will need to be restarted, sometimes including re-collection of blood cells from the patient, and the resulting delay may adversely affect that patient’s outcome. It may even happen, that failed product manufacture may prevent a patient from getting a T cell product. If microbial, environmental or other contaminations are discovered in our product candidates or in the manufacturing facilities in which our product candidates are made, such manufacturing facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination. If such contaminations or other product quality issues are not discovered and if as a result thereof patients are exposed to a health risk, we may be held liable. Our insurance may not cover those cases, or the financial coverage may not be sufficient.

Because our ACTengine cellular product candidates are manufactured specifically for each individual patient, we will be required to maintain a chain of identity with respect to the patient’s cellular material as it moves from the patient to the manufacturing facility, through the manufacturing process, and back to the patient. Maintaining such a chain of identity is difficult and complex, and failure to do so could result in adverse patient outcomes, loss of product, or regulatory action including withdrawal of our products from the market. Further, as product candidates are developed through preclinical to late-stage clinical trials towards approval and commercialization, it is common that various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing methods, are altered along the way to optimize processes and results. 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 planned clinical trials or other future clinical trials or otherwise necessitate the conduct of additional studies, including bridging clinical trials, which can be costly and time-consuming.

Currently, our cellular product candidates are manufactured using processes developed or modified by us but based on current industry standards sufficient to serve early-stage development of our product candidates. We

19

anticipate to implement further developments for registration-directed and commercial manufacturing. The final process will be closed, partially automated and viable for advanced clinical trials through product registration, and all ongoing and future company-sponsored clinical trials. Although we believe that this process is commercially viable, 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 upscaling, scale-out, process reproducibility, technology transfer, stability issues, lot consistency, and timely availability of raw materials. This includes potential risks associated with FDA not agreeing with all of the details of our validation data or our potency assay for our Phase 1 or future Phase 2 clinical trials. Furthermore, we or some of our CMOs may not be able to establish comparability of our/their products with the ACT products used in our Phase 1 or future Phase 2 clinical trials or may not be fully validated prior to starting our pivotal or registration clinical trial. As a result of these challenges, we may experience delays in our clinical development and/or commercialization plans. 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.

Our manufacturing capabilities for our allogenic cellular therapy product candidate(s) IMA30x are still in the process of being developed. We may not successfully establish a robust production process that fulfills the requirements of the FDA, the EMA and comparable regulatory authorities. If we fail to establish such a manufacturing process, we may not be able to commence clinical trials or clinical trials may be delayed. There can be no assurance that the production process we are currently developing is viable and can be effectively scaled up or transferred to a CMO for later-phase clinical testing and commercialization. If we fail to develop a process that can be used throughout the life cycle of the product candidate, commercialization may be delayed or may not occur.

Manufacturing of TCR Bispecifics (TCER), such as IMA401, IMA402, IMA403 and potential future product candidates, is susceptible to product loss due to contamination, equipment failure or improper installation or operation of equipment, vendor or operator error, inconsistency in yields, issues with purity, variability in product characteristics and difficulties in scaling the production process. Even minor deviations from normal manufacturing processes could result in reduced production yields, inacceptable purity, product defects, loss of production batches and other supply disruptions. In such cases, our development program may experience major delays and we may have to produce a new batch of a given TCER. This will be costly and will delay our TCER development program. In particular, production of a new cGMP batch may be time-consuming, as it relies on the availability of facilities with cGMP capabilities at our CMO, and such facilities must be booked far in advance. We may also experience failure of production of the master cell bank that is used to produce our TCER molecules. For example, missing clonality of the cell line or non-sterility of the cell bank may require production of a new master cell bank which would be associated with additional costs and delays.

Any failure to follow cGMP and cGTP or other regulatory requirements or any delay, interruption or other issues that arise in the manufacture, fill and finish, packaging, or storage of our product candidates as a result of a failure of our facilities or the facilities or operations of third parties to comply with regulatory requirements or pass any regulatory authority inspection could significantly impair our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates, including leading to significant delays in the availability of drug product for our clinical trials or the termination of or hold on a clinical trial, or the delay or prevention of a filing or approval of marketing applications for our product candidates.

Our TCR Bispecific product candidates that have been produced and are stored for later use may degrade, become contaminated or suffer other quality defects, which may cause the affected product candidates to no longer be suitable for their intended use in clinical trials or other development activities. If the defective product candidates cannot be replaced in a timely fashion, we may incur significant delays in our development programs that could adversely affect the value of such product candidates.

We are constructing our own manufacturing facility. However, we have no experience as a company in developing a large manufacturing facility. The designing and building process will be time consuming,

20

expensive, and we may not realize the benefit of this investment. The manufacture of biopharmaceutical products, especially of those cellular in nature like our ACT product candidates, 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 up initial production. These problems include difficulties with production costs and yields, quality control, including stability, patient to patient variability of the product candidate and quality assurance testing, shortages of qualified personnel, and compliance with strictly enforced federal, state, local and foreign regulations. Any problems or delays we or our CMOs experience in preparing for commercial scale manufacturing of a cell therapy or biologic product candidate or component may result in a delay in the regulatory approval of the product candidate or may impair our ability to manufacture commercial quantities or such quantities at an acceptable cost, which could result in the delay, prevention, or impairment of clinical development and commercialization of our product candidates and could adversely affect our business. Furthermore, if we or our commercial manufacturers fail to deliver the required commercial quantities or supply of our product candidates on a timely basis and at reasonable costs, we would likely be unable to meet demand for our products, and we would lose potential revenues.

In addition, the manufacturing process and facilities for any products that we may develop is subject to FDA, the EMA and comparable regulatory authority approval processes, and we and our CMOs will need to meet all applicable regulatory authority requirements, including cGMP and cGTP requirements, on an ongoing basis, including requirements pertaining to quality control, quality assurance, and the maintenance of records and documentation. The FDA, the EMA and comparable regulatory authorities enforce these requirements through facility inspections. Manufacturing facilities must be approved by the FDA pursuant to inspections that will be conducted after we submit our marketing applications. Manufacturers are also subject to continuing FDA, the EMA and comparable regulatory authority inspections following marketing approval. Further, we, in cooperation with our CMOs, must supply all necessary chemistry, manufacturing, and control documentation in support of a BLA on a timely basis.

We, or our CMOs’ manufacturing facilities, may be unable to comply with our specifications, cGMP and cGTP requirements, and with other regulatory requirements. Poor control of production processes can lead to the introduction of adventitious agents or other contaminants, or to inadvertent changes in the properties or stability of product candidates that may not be detectable in final product testing. If we or our CMOs are unable to reliably produce products to specifications acceptable to the FDA, the EMA or comparable regulatory authorities, or in accordance with the strict regulatory requirements, 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 can be no assurance that either we or our CMOs will be able to manufacture the approved product to specifications acceptable to the FDA, the EMA or comparable regulatory authorities, to produce it in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements for the potential launch of the product, or to meet potential future demand. Deviations from manufacturing requirements may further require remedial measures that may be costly and/or time-consuming for us or a third party to implement and may include the temporary or permanent suspension of a clinical trial or commercial sales or the temporary or permanent closure of a facility. Any such remedial measures imposed upon us or third parties with whom we contract could materially harm our business.

Risks Related to the Commercialization of Our Product Candidates

As a company, we have never commercialized a product. We currently have no active sales force or commercial infrastructure. We may lack the necessary expertise, personnel and resources to successfully commercialize our product candidates.

We currently have no active sales force or commercial infrastructure. As a company, we have never commercialized a product for any indication. Even if we receive regulatory approval for one or more of our product candidates from the FDA, the EMA or comparable regulatory authorities, we will need to develop robust internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities to commercialize such products, which will be expensive and time-consuming, or enter into collaborations with third parties to perform these services.

21

There are costs and risks involved with establishing our own sales, marketing and distribution capabilities. For example, recruiting and training a sales force is expensive and time-consuming and could delay any product launch. If the commercial launch of a product candidate for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization expenses. This may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our sales and marketing personnel. We must also compete with other biotechnology companies to recruit, hire, train and retain marketing and sales personnel.

Alternatively, we may wish to establish collaborations with third parties to maximize the potential of our product candidates jurisdictions in which a product candidate has been approved. The biotechnology industry is characterized by intense competition. Therefore, we may not be successful in entering into such commercialization arrangements with third parties on favorable terms, or at all. In addition, we may have limited control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell, market and distribute our products effectively.

There can be no assurance that we will be able to develop the necessary commercial infrastructure and capabilities to successfully commercialize our product candidates or be able to establish or maintain relationships with third parties necessary to perform these services. As a result, we may not successfully commercialize any product in any jurisdiction.

Our commercial success depends upon attaining significant market acceptance of our product candidates, if approved, among physicians, patients, patient advocacy groups, third-party payors and the medical community.

If we obtain regulatory approval for any of our current or future product candidates, that product candidate may nevertheless not gain sufficient market acceptance among physicians, patients, patient advocacy groups, third-party payors and the medical community. For example, they may prefer current, well-established cancer treatments, such as chemotherapy and radiation therapy, to the exclusion of our product candidates or may prefer other novel product candidates rather than our product candidates. Efforts to educate physicians, patients, patient advocacy groups and third-party payors on the benefits of our product candidates may require significant resources and may not be successful. If our product candidates do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenues and may not receive a satisfactory return on our investment into the research and development of those product candidates.

Market acceptance of our product candidates is heavily dependent on patients’ and physicians’ perceptions that our product candidates are safe and effective treatments. The perceptions of any product are influenced by perceptions of competitors’ products that are in the same class or that have a similar mechanism of action. As a result, adverse public perception of our competitors’ products may negatively impact the market acceptance of our product candidates. If any approved products are not accepted by the market to the extent that we expect, we may not be able to generate significant product revenues and may not become or remain profitable.

The market opportunities for our product candidates may be smaller than we estimate.

Our projections of both the number of people who have the cancers we are targeting, as well as the subset of people with these cancers who are in a position to receive our product candidates, and who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates, are based on our beliefs and estimates that have been derived from a variety of sources, including scientific literature, surveys of clinics, patient foundations, or market research by third parties, and may prove to be incorrect. These estimates may be inaccurate or based on imprecise data. We do not have verifiable internal marketing data regarding the potential size of the commercial market for our product candidates, nor have we obtained current independent marketing surveys to verify the potential size of the commercial markets for our current product candidates or any future product candidates. Since our current product candidates and any future product candidates will represent novel approaches to treating various

22

conditions, it may be difficult, in any event, to accurately estimate the potential revenues from these product candidates. The number of patients in the addressable markets may turn out to be lower than expected, patients may not be otherwise amenable to treatment with our product candidates or new patients may become increasingly difficult to identify or gain access to, all of which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

For any product candidates developed in combination with other therapies, regulatory approval, safety or supply issues with these other therapies may delay or prevent the development and approval of our product candidates.

For any product candidates developed for use in combination with an approved therapy, we are subject to the risk that the FDA, the EMA or comparable regulatory authorities could revoke approval of, or that safety, efficacy, manufacturing or supply issues could arise with, the therapy used in combination with our product candidate. If the therapies we use in combination with our product candidates are replaced as the standard of care, the FDA, the EMA or comparable regulatory authorities may require us to conduct additional clinical trials. The occurrence of any of these risks could result in our product candidates, if approved, being removed from the market or being less successful commercially.

For any product candidates developed for us in combination with a therapy that has not been approved by the FDA, the EMA or comparable regulatory authorities, we may not be able to market our product candidate for use in combination with such an unapproved therapy, unless and until the unapproved therapy receives regulatory approval. These unapproved therapies face the same risks described with respect to our product candidates currently in development, including serious adverse effects and delays in their clinical trials. In addition, other companies may also develop their products or product candidates in combination with the unapproved therapies with which we are developing our product candidates for use in combination. Any setbacks in these companies’ clinical trials, including the emergence of serious adverse effects, may delay or prevent the development and approval of our product candidates.

If the FDA, the EMA or comparable regulatory authorities do not approve or revoke their approval of, or if safety, efficacy, manufacturing, or supply issues arise with, therapies we choose to evaluate in combination with any of our product candidates, we may be unable to obtain regulatory approval of or to commercialize such product candidates in combination with these therapies.

Coverage and reimbursement may be limited or unavailable for our product candidates, which could make it difficult to sell our products profitably.

The availability and extent of coverage and adequate reimbursement by governmental and private third-party payors are essential for most patients to be able to afford expensive medical treatments. In both domestic and foreign markets, sales of our product candidates will depend substantially on the extent to which the costs of our product candidates will be covered by third-party payors, such as government health programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations. These third-party payors decide which products will be covered and establish reimbursement levels for those products. We cannot be certain that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be available for any of our product candidates, if approved, or that reimbursement policies will not reduce the demand for any of our product candidates, if approved. If coverage and adequate reimbursement are not available, or are available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates.

Obtaining coverage approval and reimbursement for a product from a government or other third-party payor is a time-consuming and costly process that could require us to provide supporting scientific, clinical and cost-effectiveness data for the use of our products to the payor. We may not be able to provide data sufficient to gain acceptance with respect to coverage and reimbursement at a satisfactory level. If coverage and adequate reimbursement of our future products, if any, are unavailable or limited in scope or amount, such as may result

23

where alternative or generic treatments are available, we may be unable to achieve or sustain profitability. Adverse coverage and reimbursement limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in our product candidates, even if such product candidates obtain regulatory approval.

Our ACT product candidate may be provided to patients in combination with other agents provided by third parties. The cost of such combination therapy may increase the overall cost of ACT therapy and may result in issues regarding the allocation of reimbursements between our therapy and the other agents, all of which may affect our ability to obtain reimbursement coverage for the combination therapy from third-party medical insurers.

Furthermore, the containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of foreign and domestic governments as well as private third-party payors. The prices of drugs have been a focus in this effort. Governments and private third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications, which could affect our ability to sell our product candidates profitably. We also expect to experience pricing pressures due to the trend towards managed healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations and additional legislative changes. These and other cost-control initiatives could cause us to decrease the price we might establish for products, which could result in lower-than-anticipated product revenues. In addition, the publication of discounts by third-party payors or authorities may lead to further pressure on the prices or reimbursement levels within the country of publication and other countries. If pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels or if coverage and adequate reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, our revenues and the potential profitability of our product candidates in those countries would be negatively affected.

Healthcare reform legislation and other changes in the healthcare industry and in healthcare spending may adversely affect our business model.

Our revenue prospects could be affected by changes in healthcare spending and policies in the United States, the European Union and any other potential jurisdictions we may seek to commercialize our product candidates, if approved. We operate in a highly regulated industry, and new laws, regulations and judicial decisions, or new interpretations of existing laws, regulations and decisions, related to healthcare availability, the method of delivery and payment for healthcare products and services could negatively affect our business, financial condition and prospects. There is significant interest in promoting healthcare reforms, and it is likely that federal and state legislatures within the United States and the governments of other countries will continue to consider changes to existing healthcare legislation.

In addition, there have been and continue to be a number of initiatives at the United States federal and state levels that seek to reduce healthcare costs. Any significant spending reductions affecting Medicare, Medicaid or other publicly funded or subsidized health programs that may be implemented, or any significant taxes or fees that may be imposed on us, as part of any broader healthcare cost reduction effort, could have an adverse impact on our anticipated product revenues. 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. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future. Any adopted health reform measure could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, if approved, or put pressure on our product pricing.

Risks Related to Our Relationships with Third Parties

We rely on third parties to conduct preclinical studies and/or clinical trials of our product candidates. If they do not properly and successfully perform their obligations to us, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approvals for our product candidates.

We currently, and we expect that we will continue to, rely on independent clinical investigators and CROs to conduct our clinical trials. CROs also assist us in the collection and analysis of data. As a result of our reliance

24

on these third parties, we have less direct control over the conduct, timing and completion of these clinical trials and the management of data developed through clinical trials than we would otherwise have if we relied entirely upon our own staff. These third parties are not our employees and we have limited control over the amount of time and resources that they dedicate to our product candidates. In addition, communications with outside parties can also be challenging, potentially leading to mistakes as well as difficulties in coordinating activities. Outside parties may:

If these third parties do not successfully carry out their duties under their agreements, or if the quality or accuracy of the data they obtain is compromised due to their failure to adhere to clinical trial protocols or to regulatory requirements, or if they otherwise fail to comply with clinical trial protocols or meet expected deadlines, the clinical trials of our product candidates may not meet regulatory requirements. Specifically, the FDA, the EMA and comparable regulatory authorities require compliance with regulations and standards, including GCP, for designing, conducting, monitoring, recording, analyzing and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that the data and results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of study participants are protected. Although we rely, and intend to continue to rely, on third parties to conduct our clinical trials, they are not our employees, and we are responsible for ensuring that each of these clinical trials is conducted in accordance with its general investigational plan, protocol, legal and regulatory requirements and scientific standards. Our reliance on these third parties for research and development activities will reduce our control over these activities, but will not relieve us of our responsibilities. If our third-party research and development partners fail to comply with applicable GCPs or other regulatory requirements, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and preclinical development activities or clinical trials may be extended, delayed, suspended or terminated.

We compete with many other companies for the resources of these third parties. These third parties may have contractual relationships with other entities, some of which may be our competitors, which may draw time and resources from our product candidates. The third parties with whom we contract might not be diligent, careful or timely in conducting our preclinical studies or clinical trials, resulting in the preclinical studies or clinical trials being delayed or unsuccessful.

If any of our relationships with any third-party research and development partner terminates its relationship with us, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative third-party research and development partners or to do so on commercially reasonable terms. Switching or adding additional third-party research and development partners involves additional cost and requires management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new third-party research and development partner commences work. As a result, delays may occur in our clinical trials, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines. There can be no assurance that we will not encounter challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

We rely on third parties to obtain reagents and raw materials.

The manufacture of our product candidates by us or any of our CMOs requires access to a number of reagents and other critical raw materials from third-party suppliers. Such third parties may refuse to supply such reagents or other raw materials or alternatively refuse to supply on commercially reasonable terms. There may

25

also be capacity issues at such third-party suppliers that impact our ability to increase production of our product candidates. Some of the materials used in the manufacture and processing of our product candidates may only be supplied by one or a few vendors, which means that, should those vendors be unable to supply, for whatever reason, our ability to manufacture product candidates and progress product candidates through clinical trials could be severely impacted and result in additional delays. Such failure to supply could also impact other supply relationships with other third parties and potentially result in additional payments being made or required in relation to such delays. In addition, where any raw material or precursor material (including, for example, lentiviral vector, cell culture medium, chromatographic column material or other essential raw material) is currently supplied by one or a few vendors, replacing such raw material or precursor or finding alternative vendors may not be possible or may significantly impact on the timescales for manufacture and supply of our product candidates. Even where alternative materials or precursors or alternative vendors are identified, such alternative materials, precursors or vendors and their materials will need to be properly assessed and qualified and additional regulatory approvals may also need to be obtained all of which could result in significant delays to the supply of our product candidates or an inability to supply product candidates within anticipated timescales, if at all.

We currently rely on third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates. Our dependence on these third parties may impair the clinical advancement and commercialization of our product candidates.

All clinical T cell products are currently manufactured by our employees through a collaboration with the Evelyn H. Griffin Stem Cell Therapeutics Research Laboratory at UTHealth (“UTH”) McGovern Medical School in Houston, Texas.

To scale our cell therapies for pivotal trials and initial commercial manufacturing, we have started the construction of a state-of-the-art GMP manufacturing facility in Houston metropolitan area, Texas. We have contractual agreements in place with GMP suppliers of lentiviral vectors, which is the most critical raw material for the manufacturing of genetically modified T cells products.

Our manufacturing strategy for TCER includes CMOs for cell line development, process development, formulation development, cGMP manufacturing, analytics, release testing, fill and finish, packaging and storage.

Reliance on third-party providers may expose us to different risks than if we were to manufacture and supply product candidates ourselves. The facilities used by our CMOs or other third-party manufacturers to manufacture our product candidates must be approved by the EMA and comparable regulatory authorities, and the FDA requires our CMOs or other third-party manufacturers to maintain a compliance status acceptable to the FDA, pursuant to inspections that will be conducted after we submit the marketing application to the applicable regulatory authorities. Although we have auditing rights with all our manufacturing counterparties, we do not have control over a supplier’s or manufacturer’s compliance with these laws, regulations, applicable cGMP and cGTP standards and other laws and regulations, such as those related to environmental health and safety matters.

If our CMOs or other third-party manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA, the EMA and comparable regulatory authorities, or if the quality or accuracy of the manufacturing and quality control data they obtain is compromised due to their failure to adhere to protocols or to regulatory requirements, we will not be able to secure and/or maintain regulatory approval for our product candidates. In addition, we have no control over the ability of our CMOs or other third-party manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If a CMO or other third-party manufacturer cannot maintain a compliance status acceptable to the FDA, or if the EMA or a comparable regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates or if it withdraws any such approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our product candidates, if approved. Any failure to achieve and maintain compliance with these laws, regulations and standards could subject us to the risk that we may have to suspend the manufacturing of our product candidates and that obtained approvals could be revoked, which would adversely affect our business and reputation.

26

Establishing additional or replacement CMOs could take a substantial amount of time and it may be difficult to establish replacement CMOs who meet regulatory requirements. There are a limited number of manufacturers that operate under cGMP and, for cellular products, also under cGTP regulations and that are both capable of manufacturing for us and willing to do so. In addition, there are limited CMOs specialized in the manufacturing of cellular therapy products. If we have to switch to a replacement CMO, the manufacture and delivery of our product candidates could be interrupted for an extended period, which could adversely affect our business. If we are able to find a replacement CMO, the replacement CMO would need to be qualified and may require additional regulatory authority approval, which could result in further delay regulatory approval and commercialization of our product candidates.

Furthermore, third-party providers may breach, terminate or decline to renew agreements they have with us because of factors beyond our control, such as their own financial difficulties or business priorities, international trade restrictions and financial costs, potentially at a time that is costly or otherwise inconvenient for us or our partners. In such cases, we would face the challenge of transferring complicated manufacturing techniques to other CMOs. We may incur significant costs and be required to devote significant time to verify that the new manufacturer maintains facilities and procedures that comply with quality standards and with all applicable regulations and guidelines. A transfer of the manufacturing process for our product candidates would be time-consuming, and we or our partners may not be able to achieve such transfer. If we are unable to find an adequate replacement or another acceptable solution in time, clinical trials of our product candidates could be delayed or our commercial activities could be harmed.

Failure of third-party contractors to successfully develop and commercialize companion diagnostics for use with our product candidates could harm our ability to commercialize our product candidates.

We plan to develop companion diagnostics for our product candidates where appropriate. Such developments are expensive and time-consuming. The FDA, the EMA and comparable regulatory authorities may request or require the development and regulatory approval of a companion diagnostic as a condition to approving one or more of our product candidates. We do not have experience or capabilities in developing, seeking regulatory approval for or commercializing diagnostics and plan to rely in large part on third parties to perform these functions.

We will likely outsource the development, production and commercialization of companion diagnostics to third parties. By outsourcing these companion diagnostics to third parties, we become dependent on the efforts of our third-party contractors to successfully develop and commercialize these companion diagnostics. Our contractors:

We collaborate with third parties in the research, development and commercialization of certain of our product candidates and may enter into other collaborations in the future for our other product candidates. If our collaborators do not perform as expected or if we are unable to maintain existing or establish additional collaborations, our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates may be adversely affected.

From time to time, we may enter into collaboration agreements with third parties that have experience in product development, manufacturing and/or commercialization for other product candidates and/or research

27

programs. We may face significant competition in seeking appropriate partners for our product candidates, and the negotiation process may be time-consuming and complex. In order for us to successfully partner our product candidates, potential collaborators must view these product candidates as economically valuable in markets they determine to be attractive in light of the terms that we are seeking and other available products for licensing by other companies. Even if we are successful in our efforts to establish collaborations, the terms that we agree upon may not be favorable to us, and we may not be able to maintain such collaborations if, for example, development or approval of a product candidate is delayed or sales of an approved product are disappointing. If we fail to establish and maintain collaborations related to our product candidates, we could bear all of the risk and costs related to the development of any such product candidate, and we may need to seek additional financing, hire additional employees and otherwise develop expertise for which we have not budgeted. This could negatively affect the development and commercialization of our product candidates.

We have collaboration agreements and license agreements with, for example MD Anderson, Genmab and Bristol-Myers Squibb (“BMS”). These agreements provide us with important funding for our development programs and technology platforms. If our therapeutic programs and related collaborations do not result in the successful development and commercialization of products or if one of our collaborators or licensors terminates its agreement with us, we may not receive any future research funding or milestone or royalty payments associated with such collaboration or license arrangement. For example, our collaboration agreement with GlaxoSmithKline was terminated in 2022. As a result, we will not receive any future milestone or royalty payments under these collaborations. In addition, any termination of an agreement by the relevant collaborators could affect our ability to develop further such product candidates or adversely affect how we are perceived in scientific and financial communities. All of the risks relating to product development, regulatory approval and commercialization described in this Annual Report also apply to the activities of our program collaborators.

In our collaboration arrangements, we depend on the performance of our collaborators. Our collaborators may fail to perform their obligations under the collaboration agreements or may not perform their obligations in a timely manner. If conflicts arise between our collaborators and us, the other party may act in a manner adverse to us and could limit our ability to implement our strategies. Furthermore, our collaborators may not properly obtain, maintain, enforce or defend our intellectual property or proprietary rights or may use our proprietary information in such a way as to invite litigation that could jeopardize or invalidate our proprietary information or expose us to potential litigation. In addition, we cannot control the amount and timing of resources our collaborators may devote to our product candidates. They may separately pursue competing products, therapeutic approaches or technologies to develop treatments for the diseases targeted by us. Competing products, either developed by the collaborators or to which the collaborators have rights, may result in the withdrawal of support for our product candidates. Even if our collaborators continue their contributions to the strategic collaborations, they may nevertheless determine not to actively pursue the development or commercialization of any resulting products. Additionally, if our collaborators pursue different clinical or regulatory strategies with their product candidates based on similar technology as used in our product candidates, adverse events with their product candidates could negatively affect our product candidates. Any of these developments could harm our product development efforts.

If our collaborators terminate or breach our agreements with them, or otherwise fail to complete their obligations in a timely manner, it may have a detrimental effect on our financial position by reducing or eliminating the potential for us to receive technology access and license fees, milestones and royalties, reimbursement of development costs, as well as possibly requiring us to devote additional efforts and incur costs associated with pursuing internal development of product candidates. Furthermore, if our collaborators do not prioritize and commit sufficient resources to our product candidates, we or our partners may be unable to develop or commercialize these product candidates, which would limit our ability to generate revenue and become profitable.

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

28

efforts with respect to our product candidates and any future product candidates that we may develop. Additionally, although we intend to develop product candidates through our own internal research, we may need to obtain additional licenses from others to advance our research or allow commercialization of our product candidates and it is possible that we may be unable to obtain additional licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. 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 shareholders or disrupt our management and business. In addition, we face significant competition in seeking appropriate strategic collaborations and licenses and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. We may also be unable to identify product candidates that we believe are an appropriate strategic fit for our company and intellectual property relating to, or necessary for, such product candidates. The in-licensing and acquisition of third-party intellectual property is a competitive area, and a number of more established companies are also pursuing strategies to in-license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider attractive or necessary. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, cash resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. Furthermore, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may not be successful in our efforts to establish strategic collaborations or other alternative arrangements for our product candidates because they may be deemed to be at too early a stage of development for collaborative effort and third parties may not view our product candidates as having the requisite potential to demonstrate safety and efficacy. Any delays in entering into new strategic collaboration 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.

We depend on intellectual property licensed from third parties and termination of any of these licenses could result in the loss of significant rights, which would harm our business.

We are dependent or may depend in the future on patents, know-how and proprietary technology licensed from others. We may also enter into additional license agreements that are material to the development of our product candidates. Our current license agreements impose, and future agreements may impose, various development, diligence, commercialization and other obligations on us and require us to meet development timelines, or to exercise commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize licensed products, in order to maintain the licenses. Disputes may arise between us and our licensors and licensees regarding intellectual property subject to a license agreement, including those related to:

If disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed, or will 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. Furthermore, if our licenses are terminated, or if the underlying patents fail to provide the intended exclusivity, competitors or other third parties would have the freedom to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, products identical or competitive to ours and we may be required to cease our development and commercialization of certain of our product candidates. We are generally also subject to all of the same risks with respect to protection of intellectual property that we license, as it is for intellectual property that we own, which are described below. If we or our licensors fail to adequately protect this intellectual property, our ability to commercialize products could suffer.

29

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

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

Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent 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, competitors and other third parties may be able to erode or negate any competitive advantage we may have, which could harm our business. To protect our proprietary position, we file patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our product candidates that are important to our business. The patent application and approval process is expensive, complex and time-consuming. We 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. Our pending patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless and until a patent issue 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 we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our patents or pending patent applications, or that we 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, our patents or pending patent applications 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 (“USPTO”), or become involved in post-grant review procedures, oppositions, derivations, reexaminations, inter partes review or interference proceedings, in the United States or elsewhere, 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 products. 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.

Even if our patent applications 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 patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner. Alternatively, our competitors may seek to market generic versions of any approved products and may claim that patents owned or licensed by us are invalid, unenforceable or not infringed. In these circumstances, we may need to defend or assert our patents, 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 our patents invalid or unenforceable, or that our competitors are competing in a non-infringing manner. Thus, even if we have 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 business.

30

If third parties claim that our activities or products infringe upon their intellectual property, our operations could be adversely affected.

There is a substantial amount of litigation, both within and outside the United States, involving patents and other intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical industry. We may, from time to time, be notified of claims that we or our third-party suppliers are infringing upon patents, trademarks, copyrights, or other intellectual property rights owned by third parties, and we cannot provide assurances that other companies will not, in the future, pursue such infringement claims against us or any third-party proprietary technologies we have licensed. If we or our third-party suppliers were found to infringe upon a patent or other intellectual property right, or if we failed to obtain or renew a license under a patent or other intellectual property right from a third party, or if a third party that we were licensing technologies from was found to infringe upon a patent or other intellectual property rights of another third party, we may be required to pay damages, including treble damages if the infringement is found to be willful, suspend the manufacture of certain product candidates or reengineer or rebrand our product candidates, if feasible, or we may be unable to enter certain new product markets. We could also be required to obtain a license to such patents in order to continue the development and commercialization of the infringing product or technology, however such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if such license were available, it may require substantial payments or cross-licenses under our intellectual property rights, and it may only be available on a nonexclusive basis, in which case third parties, including our competitors, could use the same licensed intellectual property to compete with us. Any such claims could also be expensive and time-consuming to defend and divert management’s attention and resources. Our competitive position could suffer as a result. In addition, if we have declined to enter into a valid non-disclosure or assignment agreement for any reason, we may not own an invention or intellectual property rights and may not be adequately protected. Although we have reviewed certain third-party patents and patent filings that we believe may be relevant to our product candidates, we have not conducted a full freedom-to-operate search or analysis for such product candidates, and we may not be aware of patents or pending or future patent applications that, if issued, would block us from commercializing our product candidates. In addition, because patent applications can take many years to issue, may be confidential for 18 months or more after filing and can be revised before issuance, there may be applications now pending which may later result in issued patents that may be infringed by the manufacture, use, sale or importation of our product candidates and we may not be aware of such patents. Thus, we cannot guarantee that we can successfully commercialize product candidates in a way that will not infringe any third party’s intellectual property.

Where we license certain technology from a third party, the prosecution, maintenance and defense of the patent rights licensed from such third party may be controlled by the third party which may impact the scope of patent protection which will be obtained or enforced.

Where we license patent rights or technology from a third party, control of such third-party patent rights may vest in the licensor, particularly where the license is non-exclusive or field restricted. This may mean that we are not able to control or affect the scope of the claims of any relevant third-party patent or have control over any enforcement of such a patent. Therefore, we cannot be certain that such patents and patent applications will be prepared, filed, prosecuted, maintained, enforced, and defended in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. Where a licensor brings an enforcement action, this could negatively impact our business or result in additional restrictions being imposed on the license we have and the scope of such license or result in invalidation or limitation of the scope of the licensed patent. In addition, should we wish to enforce the relevant patent rights against a third person, we may be reliant on consent from the relevant licensor or the cooperation of the licensor. The licensor may refuse to bring such action and leave us unable to restrict competitor entry into the market.

We may be involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or the patents of our licensors, or lawsuits accusing our products of patent infringement, which could be expensive, time-consuming and unsuccessful.

Competitors or third parties may infringe our patents or the patents of our licensors. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. In

31

addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that one or more of our patents is not valid or is unenforceable or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in question. Further, such third parties could counterclaim that we infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate their intellectual property or that a patent or other intellectual property right asserted against them is invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims challenging the validity, enforceability or scope of asserted patents are commonplace. The outcome of any such proceeding is generally unpredictable.

An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable, or interpreted narrowly and could put our patents applications at risk of not issuing. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expenses and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may be enjoined from manufacturing, using, and marketing our products, or may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, obtain one or more licenses from third parties, pay royalties or redesign our infringing products, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. Any required license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if such license were available, it may require substantial payments or cross-licenses under our intellectual property rights, and it may only be available on a nonexclusive basis, in which case third parties, including our competitors, could use the same licensed intellectual property to compete with us. 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 hearing, motions, or other interim developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of shares of our stock.

Obtaining and maintaining our patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, document submission, fee payment, and other requirements imposed by governmental patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements.

Periodic maintenance fees on any issued patent are due to be paid to the USPTO and foreign patent agencies in several stages over the lifetime of the patent. The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with several procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. While an inadvertent lapse can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Noncompliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include, but are not limited to, failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. In such an event, our competitors might be able to enter the market, which would have a material adverse effect on our business.

We may incur substantial costs as a result of litigation or other proceedings relating to patent and other intellectual property rights.

The cost to us of any litigation or other proceeding relating to intellectual property rights, even if resolved in our favor, could be substantial. Some of our competitors may be better able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation because they have substantially greater resources. If there is litigation against us, we may not be able to continue to operate.

Should third parties file patent applications or be issued patents claiming technology we also use or claim, we may be required to participate in interference proceedings in the USPTO to determine priority of invention. We may be required to participate in interference proceedings involving our issued patents and pending

32

applications. We may be required to cease using the technology or to license rights from prevailing third parties as a result of an unfavorable outcome in an interference proceeding. A prevailing party in that case may not offer us a license on commercially acceptable terms or at all.

Issued patents covering our product candidates could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court or the USPTO.

If we or one of our licensing collaborators initiates legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one of our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent covering our product candidate, as applicable, is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace, and there are numerous grounds upon which a third party can assert invalidity or unenforceability of a patent. Third parties may also raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, inter partes and post grant review, and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (for example, opposition proceedings). Such proceedings could result in revocation or amendment to our patents in such a way that they no longer cover our product candidates. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art of which we, our patent counsel and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business.

We may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship or ownership of our patents and other intellectual property.

Our agreements with employees and our personnel policies generally provide that any inventions conceived by such individuals in the course of rendering services to us shall be our exclusive property or that we may obtain full rights to such inventions, at our election. However, we may not obtain these agreements in all circumstances, and individuals with whom we have these agreements may not comply with their terms. We may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators, or other third parties have an ownership interest in our patents or other intellectual property. Ownership disputes may arise, for example, from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing our development candidates.

We also face the risk that present or former employees could continue to hold rights to intellectual property we use, may demand the registration of intellectual property rights in their name and demand damages or compensation pursuant to the German Employee Invention Act. In addition, under the German Employee Invention Act, certain employees retain rights to patents they invented or co-invented and disclosed to us prior to October 1, 2009 if the employee inventions were not actively claimed by us after notification by the employee inventors. While we believe that all of our current and past German employee inventors have assigned to us their interest in inventions and patents they invented or co-invented, there can be no assurance that all such assignments are fully effective. Even if we lawfully own all inventions of our employee inventors who are subject to the German Act on Employees’ Inventions, we are required under German law to reasonably compensate such employees for the use of the inventions. If we are required to pay increased compensation or face other disputes under the German Act on Employees’ Inventions, our business could be adversely affected.

Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or ownership. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, valuable intellectual property. Such an outcome could have a material adverse impact on our business. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

33

Confidentiality agreements with employees and third parties may not prevent unauthorized disclosure of trade secrets and other proprietary information.

In addition to the protection afforded by patents, we seek to rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary know-how that is not patentable, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce and any other elements of our product discovery and development processes that involve proprietary know-how, information or technology that is not covered by patents. Trade secrets, however, may be difficult to protect. Although we require all of our employees to assign their inventions to us, and require all of our employees and key consultants who have access to our proprietary know-how, information, or technology to enter into confidentiality agreements, we cannot be certain that our trade secrets and other confidential proprietary information will not be disclosed or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. Furthermore, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the United States. As a result, we may encounter significant problems in protecting and defending our intellectual property both in the United States and abroad. If we are unable to prevent unauthorized material disclosure of our intellectual property to third parties, we will not be able to establish or maintain a competitive advantage in our market, which could materially adversely affect our business, operating results and financial condition.

We may be subject to claims that we or our employees, consultants or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information of third parties, that our employees have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of their former employers, or claiming ownership of what we regard as our own intellectual property.

We employ individuals who were previously employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. In addition, our employees involved in our strategic collaborations have access to certain joint confidential information or such information from the collaborator. Although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants, and independent contractors do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, from time to time we may be subject to claims that we, or our employees, consultants, or independent contractors, have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any of our employees’ former employers or other third parties, or that patents and applications we have filed to protect inventions of these individuals, even those related to one or more of our product candidates, are rightfully owned by their former or concurrent 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, which could adversely impact our business. Such intellectual property rights could be awarded to a third party, and we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to commercialize our technology or products. Such a license may not be available on an exclusive basis or on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees. Such liability can also occur if we publish or disclose confidential information from our collaboration without permission of the respective collaborator.

Changes in U.S. or foreign countries’ patent law could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products.

As is the case with other biopharmaceutical companies, our success is dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involve both technological and legal complexity, and is therefore costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. In addition, the U.S. Congress or other foreign legislative bodies may pass patent reform legislation that is unfavorable to us. Recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, or similar authorities in foreign

34

jurisdictions, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future. We cannot predict how future decisions by the courts, the U.S. Congress or the USPTO may impact the value of our patents, nor can we predict changes in international patent law.

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

The legal protection afforded to inventors and owners of intellectual property in countries outside of the United States may not be as protective or effective as that in the United States and we may, therefore, be unable to acquire and enforce intellectual property rights outside the United States to the same extent as in the United States. Many countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of such patent. If we or any of our licensors is forced to grant a license to third parties with respect to any patents relevant to our business, our competitive position may be impaired and our business may be harmed.

Whether filed in the United States or abroad, our patent applications may be challenged or may fail to result in issued patents. In addition, our existing patents and any future patents we obtain may not be sufficiently broad to prevent others from utilizing our technologies or from developing or commercializing competing products. Furthermore, others may independently develop or commercialize similar or alternative technologies or therapies, or design around our patents. Our patents may be challenged, invalidated, circumvented or narrowed, or fail to provide us with any competitive advantages. In many foreign countries, patent applications and/or issued patents, or parts thereof, must be translated into the native language. If our patent applications or issued patents are translated incorrectly, they may not adequately cover our technologies; in some countries, it may not be possible to rectify an incorrect translation, which may result in patent protection that does not adequately cover our technologies in those countries. Filing, prosecuting, enforcing, and defending patents on product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States are less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and certain state laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from utilizing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors or other third parties may use our technologies, or technology that we license, in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop our own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our lead product candidate or any other current or future product candidates and our patents 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 and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology. In addition, certain countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. Thus, it may be difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or the marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights, generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly, could place our patent applications 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 intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we own or license.

35

Patent terms may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on our product candidates or any future product candidates for an adequate amount of time.

Patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from our earliest U.S. non-provisional filing date. Various extensions may be available, but the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of any FDA marketing approval of any product candidates we may develop, one or more of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Action of 1984 (the “Hatch-Waxman Act”). The Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent extension term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, only one patent may be extended and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. In the European Union, a maximum of five and a half years of supplementary protection can be achieved for an active ingredient or combinations of active ingredients of a medicinal product protected by a basic patent, if a valid marketing authorization exists (which must be the first authorization to place the product on the market as a medicinal product) and if the product has not already been the subject of supplementary protection. However, we may not receive an extension because of, for example, failing to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents, or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the length of the extension could be less than we request.

Even if patents covering our product candidates or any future product candidates are obtained and even if we are successful in obtaining patent term extension, once the patent life has expired, we may be open to competition from competitive products. The launch of a similar or biosimilar version of one of our products would likely result in an immediate and substantial reduction in the demand for our product, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing, and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting our current product candidates or any future product candidates might expire before or shortly after we or our collaborators commercialize those candidates. As a result, our patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

Our business depends on a strong and trusted brand, and any failure to maintain, protect, and enhance our trademarks, trade names and brand would have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results or operations and prospects.

We may rely on trademarks and trade names to protect our business. Our trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names or may be forced to stop using these names or marks which we need for name recognition by potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. During trademark registration proceedings, we may receive rejections. Although we would be given an opportunity to respond to those rejections, we may be unable to overcome such rejections. In addition, in the USPTO and in comparable agencies in many foreign jurisdictions, third parties are given an opportunity to oppose pending trademark applications and to seek to cancel registered trademarks. Opposition or cancellation proceedings may be filed against our trademarks, and our trademarks may not survive such proceedings. If we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, we may not be able to compete effectively and our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects may be adversely affected. At times, competitors may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. At times, competitors may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. For example, we have filed an opposition against Immunocore Limited’s U.S. trademark application for IMMTAX and a petition to cancel Immunocore Limited’s EU trademark registration for IMMTAX and Immunocore Limited has brought counterclaims against our registered trademark IMMATICS

36

and IMTX. In addition, TaurX Pharmaceutical Ltd. has also filed a trademark opposition against our EU trademark IMTX. If we are unsuccessful in this opposition or cancellation proceeding or if Immunocore Limited and/or TaurX Pharmaceutical Ltd. is successful in its counterclaims, we may be required to change our branding which could cause us to incur substantial costs and impede our ability to build and sustain name recognition for such platform. For more information on the opposition proceeding see “Business — Legal Proceedings.” Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, then we may not be able to compete effectively, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be significantly harmed. Our efforts to enforce or protect our proprietary rights related to trademarks, trade secrets, domain names, copyrights or other intellectual property may be ineffective and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Intellectual property rights do not necessarily address all potential threats to our competitive advantage.

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:

Should any of these events occur, it could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

37

Risks Related to Our Business and Industry

Our business could be adversely affected by the effects of health epidemics in regions where we or third parties on which we rely have significant manufacturing facilities, concentrations of clinical trial sites or other business operations.

Our business could be adversely affected by health epidemics in regions where we have clinical trial sites or other business operations; epidemics could also cause significant disruptions in the operations of third-party manufacturers and CROs upon whom we rely. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused us to modify our business practices including restricting employee travel, developing social distancing plans for our employees and cancelling physical participation in meetings, events and conferences. In addition to these observed impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, pandemics, epidemics or outbreaks of infectious diseases generally, including new variants of COVID-19, could also disrupt our research and development outcomes and schedules, clinical trials, supply and manufacturing of our products and regulatory submissions and interactions and could subject us to additional expenses and obligations. To the extent any pandemic, epidemic or outbreak of an infectious disease adversely affects our business and financial results, it may also have the effect of heightening many of the other risks described in this “Risk Factors” section.

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 other executive officers in our senior management. Despite our efforts to retain valuable employees, members of our management, scientific and development teams could always terminate their employment with us on short notice. Even though we have employment agreements in place with all our employees including key personnel, these employment agreements provide for at-will employment, which means that any of our employees could leave us at any time, subject to notice periods and non-competition clauses. 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.

In addition, our failure to put in place adequate succession plans for senior and key management roles or the failure of key employees to successfully transition into new roles could have an adverse effect on our business and operating results. The unexpected or abrupt departure of one or more of our key personnel and the failure to effectively transfer knowledge and effect smooth key personnel transitions may have an adverse effect on our business resulting from the loss of such person’s skills, knowledge of our business, and years of industry experience. If we cannot effectively manage leadership transitions and management changes in the future, our reputation and future business prospects could be adversely affected.

Competition for skilled personnel is intense, particularly in the biotechnology industry. We conduct substantially all of our operations at our facilities in Tübingen, Germany, Houston, Texas and Munich, Germany. We face competition for personnel from other companies, universities, public and private research institutions and other organizations. This competition may limit our ability to hire and retain highly qualified personnel on acceptable terms, or at all. We may not be able to attract and retain these personnel on acceptable terms. This possibility is further compounded by the novel nature of our product candidates, as fewer people are trained in or are experienced with product candidates of this type. In addition, we rely on consultants and advisors, including scientific and clinical advisors, to assist us in formulating our research and development and commercialization strategy. Our consultants and advisors may be employed or may have commitments under consulting or advisory contracts with other entities that may limit their availability to us.

We may encounter difficulties in managing our growth and expanding our operations successfully.

As we seek to advance our product candidates through clinical trials and commercialization, we are expanding our development, regulatory, manufacturing, marketing and sales capabilities and may need to further

38

expand or contract with third parties to provide these capabilities. In addition, as our operations expand, we expect that we will need to manage additional relationships with various collaborators, suppliers and other third parties. Our growth will impose significant added responsibilities on members of management. Our management may have to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from our day-to-day activities and devote a substantial amount of time to these growth activities, including identifying, recruiting, integrating, maintaining and motivating additional employees, managing our research and development efforts effectively, including the clinical trials and the FDA’s, the EMA’s or comparable regulatory authority’s review process for our product candidates, while complying with our contractual obligations to contractors and other third parties and improving our operational, financial and management controls, reporting systems and procedures.

Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize our product candidates and to compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to manage our growth effectively. To that end, we must be able to effectively manage our research and development efforts and hire, train and integrate additional management, administrative and sales and marketing personnel. We may not be able to accomplish these tasks, and our failure to accomplish any of them could prevent us from successfully growing our company or could disrupt our operations.

In addition, 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. There can be no assurance that the services of these 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. Furthermore, 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, if at all.

If we are not able to effectively expand our organization by hiring new employees and expanding our groups of consultants and contractors, 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.

As a result of being a public company, we have incurred costs and expect to continue to incur additional costs, and we may not manage to comply with our internal control procedures and corporate governance structures.

To comply with the requirements imposed on us as a public company, we have incurred, and expect to continue to incur, significant legal, insurance, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company. The increased costs may require us to reduce costs in other areas of our business. In addition, our board of directors (the “Board”), management and administrative staff are required to perform additional tasks. For example, we bear all of the internal and external costs of preparing and distributing periodic public reports in compliance with our obligations under the securities laws. We have invested, and intend to continue to invest, resources to comply with evolving laws, regulations and standards, and this investment will result in increased general and administrative expenses and may divert management’s time and attention from research and development activities. These laws, regulations and standards are often subject to varying interpretations, in many cases due to their lack of specificity, and, as a result, their application in practice may evolve over time as new guidance is provided by regulatory and governing bodies. This could result in continuing uncertainty regarding compliance matters, enforcement proceedings and higher costs necessitated by ongoing revisions to disclosure and governance practices, which could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

39

We face substantial competition, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing products, treatment methods and/or technologies before or more successfully than we do.

The biotechnology industry is characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. We face competition with respect to our current product candidates and will face competition with respect to any product candidates that we may seek to develop or commercialize in the future. See “Item 4. Information on the Company—B. Business Overview—Competition.” Our competitors include large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing and commercialization. Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial resources and capabilities in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approval and marketing than we do. In addition, many of these competitors are active in seeking patent protection and licensing arrangements in anticipation of collecting royalties for use of technology that they have developed. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through strategic collaborations with large and established companies. Furthermore, mergers and acquisitions in the biotechnology industry may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors.

Our commercial opportunities could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects or are more convenient than any products that we may develop, which would render our products obsolete or non-competitive. Our competitors also may obtain FDA, the EMA or regulatory approval in other jurisdictions for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. We anticipate that we will face increased competition in the future as additional companies enter our market and scientific developments surrounding other cancer therapies continue to accelerate.

If we do not achieve our projected development and commercialization goals in the timeframes we announce and expect, the commercialization of any of our product candidates may be delayed, and our business will be harmed.

For planning purposes, we sometimes estimate the timing of the accomplishment of various scientific, clinical, regulatory and other product development objectives. These milestones may include our expectations regarding the commencement or completion of scientific studies and clinical trials, the regulatory submissions or commercialization objectives. From time to time, we may publicly announce the expected timing of some of these milestones, such as the completion of an ongoing clinical trial, the initiation of other clinical trials, receipt of regulatory approval or the commercial launch of a product. The achievement of many of these milestones may be outside of our control. All of these milestones are based on a variety of assumptions which may cause the timing of achievement of the milestones to vary considerably from our estimates, including:

40

If we fail to achieve announced milestones in the timeframes we expect, the commercialization of any of our product candidates may be delayed, and our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects may be adversely affected.

Failure to comply with health and data protection laws and regulations could lead to government enforcement actions, private litigation and/or adverse publicity and could negatively affect our operating results and business.

We receive, generate and store significant and increasing volumes of sensitive information, such as employee and patient data. In addition, we actively seek access to medical information, including patient data, through research and development collaborations or otherwise. We have legal and contractual obligations regarding the protection of confidentiality and appropriate use of personal data. We and any potential collaborators may be subject to federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations that apply to the collection, use, retention, protection, disclosure, transfer and other processing of personal data. In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including federal health information privacy laws, state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws (for example, Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act), that govern the collection, use, disclosure and protection of health-related and other personal information could apply to our operations or the operations of our collaborators. In addition, we may obtain health information from third parties, including research institutions from which we obtain clinical trial data, that are subject to privacy and security requirements under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (“HITECH”). Depending on the facts and circumstances, we could be subject to civil, criminal and administrative penalties if we knowingly obtain, use, or disclose individually identifiable health information maintained by a HIPAA-covered entity in a manner that is not authorized or permitted by HIPAA.

Several foreign jurisdictions, including the European Union, its member states and Australia, among others, have adopted legislation and regulations that increase or change the requirements governing the collection, use, disclosure and transfer of the personal information of individuals in these jurisdictions and place greater control with the data subject. In the United States, the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) increased the requirements governing the collection, use, disclosure and transfer of the personal information of individuals in the state of California. The CCPA gives California residents expanded rights to access and request deletion of their personal information, opt out of certain sales of personal information and receive detailed information about how their personal information is used by requiring covered companies to provide new disclosures to California residents regarding such use. The CCPA provides for civil penalties for violations, as well as a private right of action for data breaches that is expected to increase data breach litigation. Additionally, California voters approved a new privacy law, the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”), which went into effect on January 1, 2023, and significantly modifies the CCPA, including by expanding consumers’ rights with respect to certain sensitive personal information. The CPRA also creates a new state agency that will be vested with authority to implement and enforce the CCPA and the CPRA. As we expand our operations and research and development efforts, the CCPA and CPRA may impose new and burdensome privacy compliance obligations on our business, may increase our compliance costs and potential liability. Other states are considering similar laws.

These laws and regulations are complex and change frequently, at times due to changes in political climate, and existing laws and regulations are subject to different and conflicting interpretations, which adds to the complexity of processing personal data from these jurisdictions. These laws have the potential to increase costs of compliance, risks of non-compliance and penalties for non-compliance. Regulation 2016/679, known as the

41

General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), as well as European Union member state implementing legislations, apply to the collection and processing of personal data, including health-related information, by companies located in the European Union, or in certain circumstances, by companies located outside of the European Union and processing personal information of individuals located in the European Union.

These laws impose strict obligations on the ability to process personal data, including health-related information, in particular in relation to their collection, use, disclosure and transfer. These include several requirements relating to (i) obtaining, in some situations, the consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, (ii) the information provided to the individuals about how their personal information is used, (iii) ensuring the security and confidentiality of the personal data, (iv) the obligation to notify regulatory authorities and affected individuals of personal data breaches, (v) extensive internal privacy governance obligations, and (vi) obligations to honor rights of individuals in relation to their personal data (for example, the right to access, correct and delete their data). The GDPR prohibits the transfer of personal data to countries outside of the European Economic Area (the “EEA”), such as the United States, which are not considered by the European Commission to provide an adequate level of data protection. Switzerland has adopted similar restrictions. Although there are legal mechanisms to allow for the transfer of personal data from the EEA and Switzerland to the United States, they are subject to legal challenges and uncertainty about compliance with European Union data protection laws remains. For example, in July 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union invalidated the so-called Privacy Shield, which provided a framework for data transferred from the European Union to the United States. To the extent that we were to rely on the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework, we will not be able to do so in the future, which could increase our costs and limit our ability to process personal data from the EU. The same decision also cast doubt on the ability to use one of the primary alternatives to the Privacy Shield, namely, the European Commission’s Standard Contractual Clauses, to lawfully transfer personal data from Europe to the United States and most other countries. At present, there are few if any viable alternatives to the Privacy Shield and the Standard Contractual Clauses.

Potential pecuniary fines for noncompliant companies may be up to the greater of €20 million or 4% of annual global revenue. Such penalties are in addition to any civil litigation claims by data controllers, customers and data subjects. The GDPR has increased our responsibility and liability in relation to personal data that we process, and we may be required to put in place additional potential mechanisms to ensure compliance with new European Union data protection rules. The GDPR also contains a private right of action allowing data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR.

Additionally, the United Kingdom’s vote in favor of exiting the EU, often referred to as Brexit, and ongoing developments in the United Kingdom have created uncertainty with regard to data protection regulation in the United Kingdom. As of January 1, 2021, and the expiry of transitional arrangements agreed to between the United Kingdom and EU, data processing in the United Kingdom is governed by a United Kingdom version of the GDPR (combining the GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018), exposing us to two parallel regimes, each of which potentially authorizes similar fines and other potentially divergent enforcement actions for certain violations. On June 28, 2021, the European Commission announced a decision of “adequacy” concluding that the United Kingdom ensures an equivalent level of data protection to the GDPR, which provides some relief regarding the legality of continued personal data flows from the EEA to the United Kingdom. This adequacy determination will automatically expire in June 2025 unless the European Commission renews or extends it and may be modified or revoked in the interim. Should the European Commission modify or revoke its adequacy determination, the United Kingdom may become an “inadequate third country” under the GDPR and transfers of data from the EEA to the United Kingdom would require a “transfer mechanism,” such as the standard contractual clauses. In the future there may be increasing scope for divergence in application, interpretation and enforcement of the data protection law as between the United Kingdom and EEA.

Compliance with U.S. and international data protection laws and regulations could require us to take on more onerous obligations in our contracts, restrict our ability to collect, use and disclose data, or in some cases,

42

impact our ability to operate in certain jurisdictions. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations could result in government enforcement actions, which could include civil, criminal and administrative penalties, private litigation, and/or adverse publicity and could negatively affect our operating results and business. Moreover, clinical trial subjects, employees and other individuals about whom we or our potential collaborators obtain personal information, as well as the providers who share this information with us, may limit our ability to collect, use and disclose the information. Claims that we have violated individuals’ privacy rights, failed to comply with data protection laws, or breached our contractual obligations, even if we are not found liable, could be expensive and time-consuming to defend and could result in adverse publicity that could harm our business.

Our current and future operations are subject to applicable fraud and abuse, transparency, government price reporting, privacy and security, and other healthcare laws. If we are unable to comply, or do not fully comply, with such laws, we could face substantial penalties.

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Our operations, including any arrangements with healthcare providers, physicians, third-party payors and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws that may affect the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we would market, sell and distribute our products. The healthcare laws that may affect our ability to operate include, but are not limited to:

43

We have entered into consulting and scientific advisory board arrangements with physicians and other healthcare providers, including some who could influence the use of our product candidates, if approved. Because of the complex and far-reaching nature of these laws, regulatory agencies may view these transactions as prohibited arrangements that must be restructured, or discontinued, or for which we could be subject to other significant penalties. We could be adversely affected if regulatory agencies interpret our financial relationships with providers who may influence the ordering and use of our drug candidates, if approved, to be in violation of applicable laws.

Ensuring that our business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will likely be costly. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business

44

practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, agency guidance or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other current or future healthcare laws that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could substantially disrupt our operations. Although effective compliance programs can mitigate the risk of investigation and prosecution for violations of these laws, these risks cannot be entirely eliminated. Any action against us for an alleged or suspected violation could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and could divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business, even if our defense is successful. In addition, if any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found not to be in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to significant criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government-funded healthcare programs.

Our employees, agents, contractors or collaborators may engage in misconduct or other improper activities.

We cannot ensure that our compliance controls, policies and procedures will in every instance protect us from acts committed by our employees, agents, contractors or collaborators that would violate the laws or regulations of the jurisdictions in which we operate, including, without limitation, healthcare, employment, foreign corrupt practices, environmental, competition, and patient privacy and other privacy laws and regulations. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional failures to comply with FDA, the EMA or other applicable regulations, provide accurate information to the FDA, the EMA and comparable regulatory authorities, comply with healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations in the United States and abroad, report financial information or data accurately or disclose unauthorized activities to us.

Such misconduct also could involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials or interactions with the FDA, the EMA or comparable regulatory authorities. If we obtain FDA approval of any of our product candidates and begin commercializing those products in the United States, our potential exposure under these laws will increase significantly, and our costs associated with compliance with these laws are likely to increase. Such improper actions could subject us to civil or criminal investigations, and monetary and injunctive penalties, and could adversely impact our ability to conduct business, operating results and reputation.

In addition, we are subject to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) and similar anti-bribery or anti-corruption laws, regulations or rules of other countries in which we operate, including the UK Bribery Act. The FCPA generally prohibits offering, promising, giving, or authorizing others to give anything of value, either directly or indirectly, to a non-U.S. government official in order to influence official action, or otherwise obtain or retain business. The FCPA also requires public companies to make and keep books and records that accurately and fairly reflect the transactions of the corporation and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls. Our business is heavily regulated and therefore involves significant interaction with public officials, including officials of non-U.S. governments. Additionally, in many other countries, the healthcare providers who prescribe pharmaceuticals are employed by their government, and the purchasers of pharmaceuticals are government entities; therefore, our dealings with these prescribers and purchasers are subject to regulation under the FCPA. There is no certainty that all of our employees, agents, contractors, or collaborators, or those of our affiliates, will comply with all applicable laws and regulations, particularly given the high level of complexity of these laws. We have provisions in our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, an anti-corruption policy and certain controls and procedures in place that are designed to mitigate the risk of non-compliance with anti-corruption and anti-bribery laws. However, it is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from government investigations or other actions stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. Violations of these laws and

45

regulations could result in, among other things, significant administrative, civil and criminal fines and sanctions against us, our officers, or our employees, the closing down of our facilities, exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs including Medicare and Medicaid, implementation of compliance programs, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, and prohibitions on the conduct of our business. Any such violations could include prohibitions on our ability to offer our products in one or more countries and could materially damage our reputation, our brand, our international expansion efforts, our ability to attract and retain employees, and our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition.

We and our third-party contractors must comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. A failure to comply with these laws and regulations could expose us to significant costs or liabilities.

We and our third-party contractors are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the use, generation, manufacture, distribution, storage, handling, treatment, remediation and disposal of biohazardous materials and wastes and genetically modified organisms. Hazardous chemicals, including potentially infectious biological substances and genetically modified organisms, are involved in certain aspects of our business, and we cannot eliminate the risk of injury or contamination from the use, generation, manufacture, distribution, storage, handling, treatment or disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. In the event of contamination or injury, or failure to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, fines and penalties associated with such liability could exceed our assets and resources.

Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance as prescribed by Texas and German laws to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of biological or hazardous materials or wastes, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. We do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us in connection with our storage or disposal of biological, hazardous or radioactive materials.

Environmental, health and safety laws and regulations are becoming increasingly more stringent. We may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts. Our failure to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

Our internal computer systems, or those of our partners, third-party CROs or other contractors or consultants, may fail or suffer security incidents, which could result in a material disruption of our product development programs and significant monetary losses.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems and those of our current or future partners, third-party CROs and other contractors and consultants have been subject to attacks by, and may be vulnerable to damage from, various methods, including cybersecurity attacks, breaches, intentional or accidental mistakes or errors, or other technological failures which can include, among other things, computer viruses, malicious codes, employee theft or misuse, unauthorized copying of our website or its content, unauthorized access attempts including third parties gaining access to systems using stolen or inferred credentials, denial-of-service attacks, phishing attempts, service disruptions, natural disasters, fire, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. As the cyber-threat landscape evolves, these attacks are growing in frequency, sophistication and intensity, and are becoming increasingly difficult to detect. Such attacks could include the use of keystroke loggers or other harmful and virulent malware, including ransomware or other denials of service, and can be deployed through malicious websites, the use of social engineering and/or other means. We may not be able to anticipate all types of security threats, and we may not be able to implement preventive measures effective against all such security threats. Further, as the COVID-19 pandemic led to an increased number of people working from home, these cybersecurity risks may be heightened by an increased

46

attack surface across our business. We cannot guarantee that our efforts, or the efforts of those upon whom we rely on and partner with, will be successful in preventing any such information security incidents.

If a failure, accident or security breach were to occur and cause interruptions in our, our partners’ or our CROs’ operations, it could result in a misappropriation of confidential information, including personally identifiable information and our intellectual property or financial information, a material disruption of our programs and/or significant monetary losses. For example, the loss of XPRESIDENT raw data, the XPRESIDENT database or other data for our product candidates could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. In addition, because of our approach to running multiple clinical trials in parallel, any breach of our computer systems may result in a loss of data or compromised data integrity across many of our programs in many stages of development. Any such breach, loss or compromise of clinical trial participant personal data may also subject us to civil fines and penalties, including under the GDPR and relevant member state law in the European Union or the CCPA, HIPAA and other relevant state and federal privacy laws in the United States. Moreover, because we maintain sensitive company data on our computer networks, including our intellectual property and proprietary business information, any such security breach may compromise information stored on our networks and may result in significant data losses or theft of our intellectual property or proprietary business information. Our current cybersecurity liability insurance, and any such insurance that we may obtain in the future, may not cover the damages we would sustain based on any breach of our computer security protocols or other cybersecurity attack. To the extent that any disruption or security breach results in a loss of or damage to our data or applications or other data or applications relating to our technology or product candidates, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, our reputation could be harmed and we could incur significant liabilities and the further development of our product candidates could be disrupted.

Product liability lawsuits could cause us to incur substantial liabilities and to limit development and commercialization of any products that we may develop.

We face an inherent risk of product liability as a result of the clinical testing of our product candidates in human clinical trials and will face an even greater risk if we commercialize any products that we successfully develop. 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 and a breach of warranties. We may also still face risks from previous research and development activities. For example, IMA950, a multi-peptide vaccine we previously developed, is still in clinical use under the responsibility of clinical investigators outside of our clinical trials (investigator-initiated trials). While any sponsor responsibility is with the investigator, we cannot fully be sure that we will not be held liable in the future for any potential product defects.

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 a successful defense would require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

47

Failure to obtain and retain 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. While we have obtained clinical trial insurance for our Phase 1 clinical trials and will also seek to obtain such insurance for future trials, any claim that may be brought against us could result in a court judgment or settlement in an amount that is not covered, in whole or in part, by our insurance or that is in excess of the limits of our insurance coverage. Our insurance policies also have various exclusions, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. In such instance, we may have to pay any 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. If we are unable to obtain or maintain sufficient insurance coverage at an acceptable cost or to otherwise protect against potential product liability claims, it could prevent or inhibit the development and commercial production and sale of our product candidates, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Litigation and other legal proceedings may adversely affect our business.

From time to time, we may become involved in legal proceedings relating to patent and other intellectual property matters, product liability claims, employee claims, tort or contract claims, regulatory investigations, securities class action and other legal proceedings or investigations, which could have an adverse impact on our reputation, business and financial condition and divert the attention of our management from the operation of our business. Litigation is inherently unpredictable and can result in excessive or unanticipated verdicts and/or injunctive relief that affect how we operate our business. We could incur judgments or enter into settlements of claims for monetary damages or for agreements to change the way we operate our business, or both. Adverse publicity about regulatory or legal action against us could damage our reputation and brand image, even if the regulatory or legal action is unfounded or not material to our operations.

Our insurance policies are expensive and protect only from some business risks, which leaves us exposed to significant uninsured liabilities.

We do not carry insurance for all categories of risks that our business may encounter, and insurance coverage is becoming increasingly expensive. We do not know if we will be able to maintain existing insurance with adequate levels of coverage, and any liability insurance coverage we acquire in the future may not be sufficient to reimburse us for any expenses or losses we may suffer. If we obtain marketing approval for any product candidates that we or our collaborators may develop, we intend to acquire insurance coverage to include the sale of commercial products, but we may be unable to obtain such insurance on commercially reasonable terms or in adequate amounts. Required coverage limits for such insurances are difficult to predict and may not be sufficient. If potential losses exceed our insurance coverage, our financial condition would be adversely affected. In the event of contamination or injury, we could be held liable for damages or be penalized with fines in an amount exceeding our resources. Clinical trials or regulatory approvals for any of our product candidates could be suspended, which could adversely affect our results of operations and business, including by preventing or limiting the development and commercialization of any product candidates that we or our collaborators may develop. Additionally, operating as a public company will make it more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance. As a result, it may be more difficult to attract and retain qualified individuals to serve on our Board or the Board committees.

If we engage in acquisitions and/or commercial collaborations in the future, we will incur a variety of costs and we may never realize the anticipated benefits of such acquisitions.

We may acquire technologies and assets, form strategic alliances or create joint ventures with third parties that we believe will complement or augment our existing business. Such efforts may never result in a transaction,

48

and any future growth through acquisition or in-licensing will depend upon the availability of suitable products, product candidates, research programs or companies for acquisition or in-licensing on acceptable prices, terms and conditions. Even if appropriate opportunities are available, we may not be able to acquire rights to them on acceptable terms, or at all. The competition to acquire or in-license rights to promising products, product candidates, research programs and companies is fierce, and many of our competitors are large, multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies with considerably more financial, development and commercialization resources and personnel than we have. In order to compete successfully in the current business climate, we may have to pay higher prices for assets than may have been paid historically, which may make it more difficult for us to realize an adequate return on any acquisition.

Even if we are able to successfully identify and acquire or in-license new products, product candidates, research programs or companies, we may not be able to successfully manage the risks associated with integrating any products, product candidates, research programs or companies into our business or the risks arising from anticipated and unanticipated problems in connection with an acquisition or in-licensing. Further, while we seek to mitigate risks and liabilities of potential acquisitions through, among other things, due diligence, there may be risks and liabilities that such due diligence efforts fail to discover, that are not disclosed to us or that we inadequately assess. In any event, we may not be able to realize the anticipated benefits of any acquisition or in-licensing for a variety of reasons, including the possibility that a product candidate fails to advance to clinical development, proves not to be safe or effective in clinical trials, or fails to reach its forecasted commercial potential, or that the integration of a product, product candidate, research program or company gives rise to unforeseen difficulties and expenditures. Any failure in identifying and managing these risks and uncertainties would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

In addition, acquisitions create other uncertainties and risks, particularly when the acquisition takes the form of a merger or other business consolidation. We may encounter unexpected difficulties, or incur unexpected costs, in connection with transition activities and integration efforts, which include:

If we fail to integrate or otherwise manage an acquired business successfully and in a timely manner, resulting operating inefficiencies could increase our costs more than we planned, could negatively impact the market price of our ordinary shares and could otherwise distract us from execution of our strategy.

49

Our business is subject to economic, political, regulatory and other risks associated with conducting business internationally.

We currently conduct clinical trials in the United States and in Germany and we plan to market our product candidates, if approved, internationally. As a result, our business is subject to risks associated with conducting business internationally. Our future results could be harmed by a variety of factors, including:

In addition, the formal change in the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union, referred to as “Brexit,” may continue to pose certain implications to our research, commercial and general business operations, including the approval and supply of our product candidates. The Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union is comprehensive but does not cover all areas of regulation pertinent to the pharmaceutical industry, so certain complexities remain. It may be time-consuming and expensive for us to alter our internal operations in order to comply with new regulations as a result of Brexit. Altered regulations could also add time and expense to the process by which our product candidates receive regulatory approval in the United Kingdom and the European Union.

50

If we fail to maintain an effective system of internal control over financial reporting, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results or prevent fraud.

Effective internal control over financial reporting is necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and prevent fraud. Any failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in our implementation could cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. In addition, any testing conducted by us, or any testing conducted by our independent registered public accounting firm, may reveal deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses or that may require prospective or retroactive changes to our financial statements or identify other areas for further attention or improvement. Inferior internal controls could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which is likely to negatively affect our business and the market price of our ordinary shares.

We are required to disclose changes made in our internal controls and procedures and assess the effectiveness of these controls annually. However, for as long as we are an “emerging growth company” under the JOBS Act, our independent registered public accounting firm will not be required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act”). An independent assessment of the effectiveness of our internal controls could detect problems that our management’s assessment might not. Material weaknesses in our internal controls could lead to financial statement restatements and require us to incur the expense of remediation.

Risks Related to Ownership of Our Securities

The market price of our securities has been and may continue to be volatile and may fluctuate due to factors beyond our control

The market price of shares of our securities has been and may continue to be subject to wide fluctuations in response to many risk factors listed in this “D. Risk Factors” section, and others beyond our control, including:

51

In addition, the stock market has historically experienced significant volatility, particularly with respect to pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other life sciences company stocks. The volatility of pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other life sciences company stocks often does not relate to the operating performance of the companies represented by the stock. As we operate in a single industry, we are especially vulnerable to these factors to the extent that they affect our industry or our product candidates. In the past, securities class action litigation has often been initiated against companies following periods of volatility in their stock price. This risk is especially relevant for biotechnology companies, which have experienced significant stock price volatility in recent years. Securities litigation could result in substantial costs and divert our management’s attention and resources, and could also require us to make substantial payments to satisfy judgments or to settle litigation.

Our warrants may never be in the money and may expire worthless.

The exercise price for our warrants is $11.50 per ordinary share and our warrants are out of the money as of December 31, 2022. Our warrants may never be in the money prior to their expiration, and as such, the warrants may expire worthless.

Warrant holders will have no rights as ordinary shareholders until they acquire our ordinary shares.

Until warrant holders acquire our ordinary shares upon exercise of such warrants, they will have no rights with respect to our ordinary shares issuable upon exercise of such warrants, including the right to vote or respond to tender offers. Upon exercise of the warrants, holders will be entitled to exercise the rights of an ordinary shareholder only as to matters for which the record date occurs after the exercise date.

If securities or industry analysts do not continue to publish research, or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research, about our business, the price of our securities and our trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our securities depends, in part, on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. If one or more of the analysts who cover us downgrade our securities or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, the price of our securities would likely decline. In addition, if our operating results fail to meet the forecast of analysts, the price of our securities would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of our company or fail to publish reports on us regularly, demand for our securities could decrease, which might cause the price and trading volume of our securities to decline.

The issuance of ordinary shares in connection with the exercise of warrants will dilute the ownership interest of the holders of our ordinary shares and may materially affect the trading price of our ordinary shares.

As of January 31, 2023, we had outstanding 7,187,500 warrants to purchase an equivalent number of our ordinary shares at an exercise price of $11.50 per ordinary share. To the extent that warrant holders elect to exercise their warrants, substantial amounts of our ordinary shares may be issued in the future. We cannot quantify the number of ordinary shares that will be issued in connection with the exercise, if any. However, the issuance of ordinary shares pursuant to such exercise could result in substantial dilution of the ownership interests of holders of our ordinary shares and could materially affect the trading price of our ordinary shares.

52

We have never paid dividends and do not expect to pay any dividends in the foreseeable future.

We have not paid any cash dividends since our incorporation. Even if future operations lead to significant levels of distributable profits, we currently intend to reinvest any earnings in our business and do not anticipate declaring or paying any cash dividends until we have an established revenue stream to support continuing dividends. Further, since we are a holding company, our ability to pay dividends will be dependent upon the financial condition, liquidity and results of operations of, and our receipt of dividends, loans or other funds from, our subsidiaries. Our subsidiaries are separate and distinct legal entities and have no obligation to make funds available to us. In addition, there are various statutory, regulatory and contractual limitations and business considerations on the extent, if any, to which our subsidiaries may pay dividends, make loans or otherwise provide funds to us. Accordingly, investors in our securities cannot rely on dividend income, and any returns on an investment in our securities will likely depend entirely upon any future appreciation in the price of such securities.

Certain shareholders have representation on the Board, and have a substantial degree of influence over us, which could delay or prevent a change of corporate control or result in the entrenchment of our management and/or directors.

Two of our principal shareholders, ARYA Sciences Holdings (“ARYA Sponsor”) and dievini Hopp BioTech holding GmbH & Co. KG, are represented on the Board. As a result, such shareholders may be able to significantly influence the outcome of matters submitted for director action, subject to obligation of the Board to act in the interest of all of our stakeholders, and for shareholder action, including the appointment of the Board and approval of significant corporate transactions, including business combinations, consolidations and mergers.

To the extent that the interests of our principal shareholders may differ from the interests of our other shareholders, the latter may be disadvantaged by any action that our principal shareholders may seek to pursue. The influence of such shareholders over us and our management could also have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control or otherwise discouraging a potential acquirer from attempting to obtain control of our company, which could cause the market price of our securities to decline or prevent our shareholders from realizing a premium over the market price for our securities. Additionally, ARYA Sponsor is controlled by Perceptive Advisors LLC and its affiliates (“Perceptive”), which is in the business of making investments in companies and which may from time to time acquire and hold interests in businesses that compete directly or indirectly with us or that supply us with goods and services. Perceptive may also pursue acquisition opportunities that may be complementary to (or competitive with) our business, and as a result those acquisition opportunities may not be available to us.

We are organized and existing under the laws of the Netherlands, and, as such, the rights of our shareholders and the civil liability of our directors and executive officers are governed in certain respects by the laws of the Netherlands.

We are organized and existing under the laws of the Netherlands, and, as such, Dutch private international law governs the rights of our shareholders and the civil liability of our directors and executive officers are governed in certain respects by the laws of the Netherlands. The ability of our shareholders in certain countries other than the Netherlands to bring an action against us, our directors and executive officers may be limited under applicable law. In addition, substantially all of our assets are located outside the United States.

As a result, it may not be possible for shareholders to effect service of process within the United States upon us or our directors and executive officers or to enforce judgments against us or them in U.S. courts, including judgments predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the federal securities laws of the United States. In addition, it is not clear whether a Dutch court would impose civil liability on us or any of our directors and executive officers in an original action based solely upon the federal securities laws of the United States brought in a court of competent jurisdiction in the Netherlands.

53

As of the date of this Annual Report, there is no treaty in effect between the United States and the Netherlands providing for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments, other than arbitration awards, in civil and commercial matters. It is noted that, on the date of this Annual Report, the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements of June 30, 2005, has entered into force for the Netherlands, but has not entered into force for the United States. The Hague Convention of July 2, 2019, on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters has not entered into force for either the Netherlands or the United States. Accordingly, a judgment rendered by a court in the United States, whether or not predicated solely upon U.S. securities laws, would not automatically be recognized and enforced by the competent Dutch courts. However, if a person has obtained a judgment rendered by a court in the United States that is enforceable under the laws of the United States and files a claim with the competent Dutch court, the Dutch court will in principle give binding effect to such judgment if (i) the jurisdiction of the foreign court was based on a ground of jurisdiction that is generally acceptable according to international standards, (ii) the judgment by the U.S. court was rendered in legal proceedings that comply with the Dutch standards of proper administration of justice including sufficient safeguards (behoorlijke rechtspleging), (iii) binding effect of such U.S. judgment is not contrary to Dutch public order (openbare orde) and (iv) the judgment by the U.S. court is not incompatible with a decision rendered between the same parties by a Dutch court, or with a previous decision rendered between the same parties by a foreign court in a dispute that concerns the same subject and is based on the same cause, provided that the previous decision qualifies for recognition in the Netherlands. Even if such a foreign U.S. judgement is given binding effect, a claim based thereon may, however, still be rejected if the foreign U.S. judgment is not or no longer formally enforceable. Dutch courts may deny the recognition and enforcement of punitive damages or other awards. Moreover, a Dutch court may reduce the amount of damages granted by a U.S. court and recognize damages only to the extent that they are necessary to compensate actual losses or damages. Enforcement and recognition of judgments of U.S. courts in the Netherlands are solely governed by the provisions of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering).

Based on the lack of a treaty as described above, U.S. investors may not be able to enforce against the company or our directors, representatives or certain experts named herein who are residents of the Netherlands or countries other than the United States any judgments obtained in U.S. courts in civil and commercial matters, including judgments under the U.S. federal securities laws.

Under our articles of association, and certain other contractual arrangements between us and our directors, we will indemnify and hold our directors harmless against all claims and suits brought against them, subject to limited exceptions. There is doubt, however, as to whether U.S. courts would enforce such indemnity provisions in an action brought against one of our directors in the United States under U.S. securities laws.

Provisions of our articles of association or Dutch corporate law might deter acquisition bids for us that our shareholders might consider to be favorable and prevent or frustrate any attempt to replace or remove the Board at the time of such acquisition bid.

Under Dutch law, various protective measures are possible and permissible within the boundaries set by Dutch law and Dutch case law.

In this respect, certain provisions of our articles of association may make it more difficult for a third party to acquire control of us or effect a change in the composition of the Board. These provisions include:

54

Furthermore, in accordance with the Dutch Corporate Governance Code, or DCGC, shareholders who have the right to put an item on the agenda for our general meeting or to request the convening of a general meeting shall not exercise such rights until after they have consulted the Board. If exercising such rights may result in a change in our strategy (for example, through the dismissal of one or more of our directors), the Board must be given the opportunity to invoke a reasonable period of up to 180 days to respond to the shareholders’ intentions. If invoked, the Board must use such response period for further deliberation and constructive consultation, in any event with the shareholder(s) concerned and exploring alternatives. At the end of the response time, the Board shall report on this consultation and the exploration of alternatives to our general meeting. The response period may be invoked only once for any given general meeting and shall not apply (i) in respect of a matter for which a response period or a statutory cooling-off period (as discussed below) has been previously invoked or (ii) in situations where a shareholder holds at least 75% of our issued share capital as a consequence of a successful public bid. Moreover, the Board can invoke a cooling-off period of up to 250 days when shareholders, using their right to have items added to the agenda for a general meeting or their right to request a general meeting, propose an agenda item for our general meeting to dismiss, suspend or appoint one or more directors (or to amend any provision in our articles of association dealing with those matters) or when a public offer for our company is made or announced without our support, provided, in each case, that the Board believes that such proposal or offer materially conflicts with the interests of our company and its business. During a cooling-off period, our general meeting cannot dismiss, suspend or appoint directors (or amend the provisions in our articles of association dealing with those matters) except at the proposal of the Board. During a cooling-off period, the Board must gather all relevant information necessary for a careful decision-making process and at least consult with shareholders representing 3% or more of our issued share capital at the time the cooling-off period was invoked, as well as with our Dutch works council (if we or, under certain circumstances, any of our subsidiaries would have one). Formal statements expressed by these stakeholders during such consultations must be published on our website to the extent these stakeholders have approved that publication. Ultimately one week following the last day of the cooling-off period, the Board must publish a report in respect of its policy and conduct of affairs during the cooling-off period on our website. This report must remain available for inspection by shareholders and others with meeting rights under Dutch law at our office and must be tabled for discussion at the next general meeting. Shareholders representing at least 3% of our issued share capital may request the Enterprise Chamber of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal, or the Enterprise Chamber (Ondernemingskamer), for early termination of the cooling-off period. The Enterprise Chamber must rule in favor of the request if the shareholders can demonstrate that:

Such provisions could discourage a takeover attempt and impair the ability of shareholders to benefit from a change in control and realize any potential change of control premium. This may adversely affect the market price of our securities. See “Item 10. Additional Information—B. Memorandum and Articles of Association”.

55

Our shareholders may not have any pre-emptive rights in respect of future issuances of our ordinary shares.

In the event of an increase in our share capital by way of an issuance of ordinary shares, holders of ordinary shares are generally entitled under Dutch law to full pre-emptive rights, unless these rights are limited or excluded either by a resolution of the general meeting or by another corporate body designated by the general meeting, or where shares are issued to our employees or a group company (i.e., certain affiliates, subsidiaries or related companies) or paid up by means of a non-cash contribution, or in case of an exercise of a previously acquired right to subscribe for shares. The same pre-emptive rights apply when rights to subscribe for shares are granted.

Pursuant to our resolution of the general meeting dated June 30, 2020, the Board is irrevocably authorized for a period of five years from the date of the ARYA Merger to limit or exclude pre-emptive rights on our ordinary shares up to 100% of the number of our ordinary shares in our authorized share capital (from time to time). Accordingly, holders of our ordinary shares may not have any pre-emptive rights in connection with, and may be diluted by, an issue of new ordinary shares and it may be more difficult for a shareholder to obtain control over the general meeting. See “Item 10. Additional Information—B. Memorandum and Articles of Association.” Further, certain of our ordinary shareholders outside the Netherlands, in particular, U.S. ordinary shareholders, may not be allowed to exercise pre-emptive rights to which they are entitled, if any, unless a registration statement under the Securities Act is declared effective with respect to ordinary shares issuable upon exercise of such rights or an exemption from the registration requirements is available. Pre-emptive rights do not exist with respect to the issue of financing preferred shares and holders of financing preferred shares have no pre-emptive right to acquire newly issued ordinary shares.

We are not obligated to and do not comply with all the best practice provisions of the DCGC. This could adversely affect the rights of our shareholders.

As a Dutch public company, we are subject to the DCGC. The DCGC contains both principles and best practice provisions on corporate governance that regulate relations between the Board and the general meeting and matters in respect of financial reporting, auditors, disclosure compliance and enforcement standards.

The DCGC is based on a “comply or explain” principle. Accordingly, companies must disclose in their statutory annual reports whether they comply with the provisions of the DCGC. If a company subject to the DCGC does not comply with those provisions (for example, because of a conflicting Nasdaq requirement), that company would be required to give the reasons for such non-compliance. The DCGC applies to Dutch companies listed on a government recognized stock exchange, whether in the Netherlands or elsewhere, including Nasdaq.

We acknowledge the importance of good corporate governance. However, we do not comply with all the provisions of the DCGC, to a large extent because such provisions conflict with or are inconsistent with the corporate governance rules of the Nasdaq and U.S. securities laws applicable to us, or because we believe such provisions do not reflect customary practices of global companies listed on Nasdaq. This may affect the rights of our shareholders and our shareholders may not have the same level of protection as a shareholder in a Dutch company that fully complies with the DCGC.

We are a foreign private issuer, and, as a result, we are not subject to certain rules and obligations that are applicable to a U.S. domestic public company and are not subject to certain Nasdaq corporate governance listing standards that are applicable to a Nasdaq-listed U.S. domestic public company.

We report under the Exchange Act as a non-U.S. company with foreign private issuer status. Because we qualify as a foreign private issuer under the Exchange Act and although we furnish quarterly financial information to the SEC, we are exempt from certain provisions of the Exchange Act that are applicable to U.S. domestic public companies, including (i) the sections of the Exchange Act regulating the solicitation of proxies, consents or authorizations in respect of a security registered under the Exchange Act; (ii) the sections of the

56

Exchange Act requiring insiders to file public reports of their stock ownership and trading activities, and liability for insiders who profit from trades made in a short period of time; and (iii) the rules under the Exchange Act requiring the filing with the SEC of quarterly reports on Form 10-Q containing unaudited financial and other specified information, or current reports on Form 8-K upon the occurrence of specified significant events. In addition, foreign private issuers are not required to file their annual report on Form 20-F until four months after the end of each financial year, while U.S. domestic issuers are required to file their annual report on Form 10-K in less time. Foreign private issuers are also exempt from the Regulation Fair Disclosure, aimed at preventing issuers from making selective disclosures of material information.

Furthermore, because we are a foreign private issuer, we have elected to comply with our home country governance requirements and certain exemptions thereunder, rather than complying with certain of the Nasdaq corporate governance listing standards that are applicable to U.S. companies listed on the Nasdaq. Furthermore, Nasdaq listing standards generally require Nasdaq-listed U.S. companies to, among other things, seek shareholder approval for the implementation of certain equity compensation plans and issuances of securities, which we are not required to follow as a foreign private issuer. Accordingly, our shareholders may not have the same protections afforded to shareholders of companies that are not foreign private issuers. See “Item 16G. Corporate Governance.”

We may lose our foreign private issuer status, which would then require us to comply with the Exchange Act’s domestic reporting regime and cause us to incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses.

We are a foreign private issuer, and therefore we are not required to comply with all of the periodic disclosure and current reporting requirements of the Exchange Act applicable to U.S. domestic issuers. We may no longer be a foreign private issuer as of June 30, 2023, which would require us to comply with all of the periodic disclosure and current reporting requirements of the Exchange Act applicable to U.S. domestic issuers, including the application of US GAAP, as of January 1, 2024. In order to maintain our current status as a foreign private issuer, either (a) a majority of our ordinary shares must be either directly or indirectly owned of record by non-residents of the United States or (b)(i) a majority of our executive officers or directors may not be United States citizens or residents, (ii) more than 50% of our assets cannot be located in the United States and (iii) our business must be administered principally outside the United States. If we lose this status, we would be required to comply with the Exchange Act reporting and other requirements applicable to U.S. domestic issuers, which are more detailed and extensive than the requirements for foreign private issuers. We may also be required to make changes in our corporate governance practices in accordance with various SEC and stock exchange rules. The regulatory and compliance costs to us under U.S. securities laws if we are required to comply with the reporting requirements applicable to a U.S. domestic issuer may be significantly higher than the cost we would incur as a foreign private issuer. As a result, we expect that a loss of foreign private issuer status would increase our legal and financial compliance costs and would make some activities highly time-consuming and costly. We also expect that if we were required to comply with the rules and regulations applicable to U.S. domestic issuers, it would be more difficult and expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, and we may be required to accept reduced coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain coverage. These rules and regulations could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified members of our Board.

We are an emerging growth company, and we cannot be certain if the reduced reporting requirements applicable to emerging growth companies make our ordinary shares less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act. For as long as we continue to be an emerging growth company, we may take advantage of exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies, including, but not limited to, (i) not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, (ii) reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements and (iii) exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation. In addition, as an emerging growth company, we are required to provide only two years of audited

57

financial statements and two years of selected financial data in our initial registration statement, compared to three and five years, respectively, for comparable data reported by other public companies.

We are currently an emerging growth company. We would cease to be an emerging growth company upon the earliest to occur of (i) the last day of the fiscal year during which the market value of our ordinary shares held by non-affiliates equals or exceeds $700 million as of any June 30, (ii) the last day of the fiscal year following the fifth anniversary of the date of the first sale of common equity securities pursuant to an effective registration statement, (iii) the last day of the fiscal year during which we had total annual gross revenues of $1.24 billion or more, (iv) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt during the previous three-year period. Even after we no longer qualify as an emerging growth company and if we are no longer an FPI, we may still qualify as a “smaller reporting company,” which would allow us to take advantage of many of the same exemptions from disclosure requirements, including not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements. We cannot predict if investors will find our securities less attractive because we may rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our securities less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our securities and the price of our securities may be more volatile. When these exemptions cease to apply, we expect to incur additional expenses and devote increased management effort towards ensuring compliance with them, and we cannot predict or estimate the amount or timing of such additional costs.

Risks Related to Taxation

We may be or may become a PFIC, which could result in adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences to U.S. holders.

If we or any of our subsidiaries is a passive foreign investment company (a “PFIC”) for any taxable year, or portion thereof, that is included in the holding period of a beneficial owner of our ordinary shares that is a U.S. Holder, such U.S. Holder (as defined in “Item 10. Additional Information—E. Taxation—Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations for U.S. Holders”), may be subject to certain adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences and may be subject to additional reporting requirements. It is uncertain whether we or any of our subsidiaries, including Immatics OpCo, will be treated as a PFIC for U.S. federal income tax purposes for 2022 or for the current or any subsequent tax year. If we determine that we and/or any of our subsidiaries is a PFIC for any taxable year, we intend to provide a U.S. Holder with such information necessary for the U.S. Holder to make and maintain a QEF Election (as defined in “Item 10. Additional Information—E. Taxation—Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations for U.S. Holders”) with respect to us and/or such subsidiaries, but there can be no assurance that we will have timely knowledge of our status as a PFIC in the future or of the required information to be provided. See “Item 10. Additional Information—E. Taxation—Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations for U.S. Holders.” Prospective U.S. Holders of our ordinary shares or warrants are urged to consult their tax advisors regarding the possible application of the PFIC rules to them.

We may become taxable in a jurisdiction other than Germany, and this may cause us to be subject to increased and/or different taxes than we expect.

Since our incorporation, we have had, on a continuous basis, our place of effective management in Germany. Therefore, we believe that we are a tax resident of Germany under German national tax laws. As an entity incorporated under Dutch law, however, we also qualify as a tax resident of the Netherlands under Dutch national tax laws. However, based on our current management structure and the tax laws of the United States, Germany and the Netherlands, as well as applicable income tax treaties, and current interpretations thereof, we believe that we are tax resident solely in Germany for the purposes of the 2012 tax treaty between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Netherlands for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income.

Our sole tax residency in Germany for purposes of the above-mentioned tax treaty is subject to the application of the provisions on tax residency as stipulated in such treaty as amended from time to time. The

58

Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (the “MLI”), Germany and the Netherlands entered into, among other countries, should not, as of this date, affect such tax treaty’s rules regarding tax residency.

The applicable tax laws, tax treaties or interpretations thereof may change. Furthermore, whether we have our place of effective management in Germany and are as such solely tax resident in Germany is largely a question of fact and degree based on all the circumstances, rather than a question of law, which facts and degree may also change. Changes to applicable tax laws or interpretations thereof and changes to applicable facts and circumstances (e.g., a change of board members or the place where board meetings take place), or changes to applicable tax treaties, including a change to the application of the MLI, may result in us becoming (also) a tax resident of another jurisdiction (other than Germany), potentially also triggering an exit tax liability in Germany. As a consequence, our overall effective income tax rate and income tax expense could materially increase, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

If we ever pay dividends, we may need to withhold tax on such dividends in both Germany and the Netherlands.

We have no plan to declare or pay any dividends on our ordinary shares in the foreseeable future. However, if we do pay dividends, we may need to withhold tax on such dividends both in Germany and the Netherlands. As an entity incorporated under Dutch law, any dividends distributed by us are subject to Dutch dividend withholding tax on the basis of Dutch domestic law. However, on the basis of the double tax treaty between Germany and the Netherlands, the Netherlands will be restricted in imposing these taxes if we continue to be a tax resident of Germany and our place of effective management is in Germany. However, Dutch dividend withholding tax is still required to be withheld from dividends if and when paid to Dutch resident holders of our ordinary shares (and non-Dutch resident holders of our ordinary shares that have a permanent establishment in the Netherlands to which their shareholding is attributable). As a result, upon a payment (or deemed payment) of dividends, we will be required to identify our shareholders in order to assess whether there are Dutch residents (or non-Dutch residents with a permanent establishment in the Netherlands to which the shares are attributable) in respect of which Dutch dividend tax has to be withheld. Such identification may not always be possible in practice. If the identity of our shareholders cannot be determined, withholding of both German and Dutch dividend tax from such dividend may occur upon a payment of dividends.

Furthermore, the withholding tax restriction referred to above is based on the current choices and reservation of Germany under the MLI. If Germany changes its MLI choices and reservation, we may not be entitled to any benefits of the double tax treaty between Germany and the Netherlands, including the withholding tax restriction, as long as Germany and the Netherlands do not reach an agreement on our tax residency for purposes of the tax treaty between Germany and the Netherlands, except to the extent and in such manner as may be agreed upon by the authorities. As a result, any dividends distributed by us during the period no such agreement has been reached between Germany and the Netherlands, may be subject to dividend withholding tax both in Germany and the Netherlands.

In addition, a proposed law is currently pending before the Dutch parliament, namely the Emergency act conditional exit dividend tax (Spoedwet conditionele eindafrekening dividendbelasting) which would, if enacted, impose a dividend withholding (exit) tax on certain deemed distributions if we cease to be a Dutch tax resident and become a tax resident of a jurisdiction that is not a member of the EU or the EEA, when such jurisdiction does not satisfy certain conditions. In some cases, we would have a right to recover the amount of tax from our shareholders when such shareholder is not entitled to an exemption. If enacted in the form in which it is presently pending before the Dutch parliament, the proposed law will have retroactive effect to December 8, 2021.

59

A. History and Development of the Company

We were incorporated as a Dutch private limited liability company (besloten vennootschap met beperkte aansprakelijkheid) under the name Immatics B.V. on March 10, 2020 solely for the purpose of effectuating the business combination (the “ARYA Merger”) between us, ARYA Sciences Acquisition Corp., a Cayman Islands exempted company (“ARYA”), Immatics Biotechnologies GmbH, a German limited liability company, Immatics Merger Sub 1, a Cayman Islands exempted company, and Immatics Merger Sub 2, a Cayman Islands exempted company. Upon the closing of the ARYA Merger on July 1, 2020, we converted into a Dutch public limited liability company (naamloze vennootschap) and changed our name to Immatics N.V.

We are registered in the Commercial Register of the Chamber of Commerce (Kamer van Koophandel) in the Netherlands under number 77595726. We have our corporate seat in Amsterdam, the Netherlands and our registered office is at Paul-Ehrlich-Straße 15, 72076 Tübingen, Federal Republic of Germany, and our telephone number is +49 (7071) 5397-0. Our executive office in the United States is located at Immatics US, Inc., 2130 W. Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, Texas, 77030 and our telephone number is +1 (346) 204-5400. Our website is www.immatics.com. The reference to our website is an inactive textual reference only, and information contained therein or connected thereto are not incorporated into this Annual Report. We file reports and other information with the SEC, including annual reports on Form 20-F and reports on Form 6-K. The SEC maintains an Internet site at www.sec.gov that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information we have filed electronically with the SEC.

B. Business Overview

Overview

We are a clinical-stage biotechnology company dedicated to the development of T cell receptor (“TCR”)-based immunotherapies for the treatment of cancer. Our purpose is to deliver a meaningful impact on the lives of cancer patients by developing novel TCR-based immunotherapies that are designed to achieve effect beyond an incremental clinical benefit. Our focus is the development of product candidates for the treatment of patients with solid tumors, who are inadequately served by existing treatment modalities. We strive to become an industry leading, fully integrated global biopharmaceutical company engaged in developing, manufacturing and commercializing TCR immunotherapies for the benefit of cancer patients, our employees, our shareholders and our partners.

By utilizing TCR-based therapeutics, we are able to direct T cells to intracellular cancer targets that are not accessible through classical antibody-based or CAR-T therapies. We believe that by identifying what we call true cancer targets and the right TCRs, we are well positioned to transform current solid tumor treatment paradigms by delivering cellular and bispecific product candidates that have the potential to substantially improve the lives of cancer patients.

We are developing our targeted immunotherapy product candidates through two distinct treatment modalities: TCR-engineered autologous (“ACTengine”) or allogeneic (“ACTallo”) Adoptive Cell Therapies (“ACT”) and antibody-like Bispecifics, also called T cell Engaging Receptors (“TCER”). Each modality is designed with distinct attributes and mechanisms of action to produce the desired therapeutic effect for a variety of cancer patient populations with different unmet medical needs. Our current pipeline shown below comprises several proprietary TCR-based product candidates in clinical and preclinical development. In addition to our proprietary pipeline, we are collaborating with industry-leading partners, including Bristol Myers Squibb (“BMS”), Editas Medicine and Genmab, to develop multiple additional therapeutic programs covering ACT and Bispecifics.

60

¹ Phase 1a: Dose escalation, Phase 1b: Dose expansion; ² Opdivo (nivolumab): programmed death-1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint inhibitor; * Immatics proprietary ACTallo platform utilizing Editas’ CRISPR gene editing technology

We believe, we are ideally positioned to comprehensively address the needs of solid tumor patients with our TCR-based therapeutic approaches: ACTengine TCR-engineered T cells (“TCR-T”) have already shown strong clinical activity in patients with high tumor burden. They are typically single infusion treatments administered at specialized medical centers and require a personalized autologous cell supply chain. TCERs are off-the-shelf available and supply chain efficient. We believe TCERs could enable the treatment of a broader patient group without the need for specialized medical centers, analogous to classical antibody-based biologics and could therefore present favorable commercial characteristics. Although TCERs will require multiple rounds of dosing, they are intended to be used in the outpatient setting. Further, both therapeutic approaches have different target requirements: While TCR-T approaches are well suited for targets with stringent tumor selectivity, they can also address targets with low number of copies per cell. TCER molecules require targets with higher copy numbers, but can also be used for targets with a broader expression profile. The positioning and distinct attributes of both approaches, ACTengine and TCER, are depicted below.

¹ Interim data update from the ACTengine IMA203 TCR-T Phase 1 trial with a 50% (6/12) confirmed ORR target dose or above with at least 1 billion infused TCR-T cells across several solid tumor indications, 80% (4/5) confirmed ORR in Phase 1b patients; ² Initial manufacturing may provide sufficient quantity for potential repeat dosing.

61

In addition to our autologous ACTengine product candidates we are also building an allogeneic platform (ACTallo) based on allogeneic (i.e. third-party donor-derived) gamma delta T cells. ACTallo is advancing the cell therapy concept beyond individualized manufacturing and is being developed to generate an “off-the-shelf” cell therapy.

Our Strategy

Our mission is to deliver the power of T cells to cancer patients. We seek to execute the following strategy to develop TCR-based immunotherapies for the treatment of cancer, maximizing the value of our technology platforms and the broad portfolio of product candidates:

62

63

Near-Term Portfolio Milestones

Our current focus is the clinical development of our lead assets from our autologous TCR-T (ACTengine) and TCR Bispecifics (TCER) pipeline, including execution of the following near-term portfolio milestones:

* Clinical Trial Application (CTA) is the European equivalent of an Investigational New Drug (IND) application

ACTengine TCR-T Product Candidates

Our ACTengine programs are based on genetically engineering a patient’s own, autologous T cells with novel TCRs designed to recognize a specific cancer target on the tumor. The engineered T cells (TCR-T) are intended to induce a robust and specific anti-tumor attack to fight the cancer. The ACTengine mechanism of action is depicted below.

64

Upon infusion of an ACTengine product, T cells “equipped” with the cancer target-specific TCR are designed to bind to the pHLA target on the tumor. Subsequent activation of the T cell induces release of cytotoxic granules that might ultimately lead to tumor killing.

ACTengine IMA203 – TCR-T Targeting PRAME

Our lead autologous TCR-T program, ACTengine IMA203, is directed against an HLA-A*02:01-presented peptide derived from PRAME, one of the most prevalent solid tumor targets known to date. PRAME is frequently expressed in solid tumors such as melanoma, uveal melanoma, uterine cancers, ovarian cancer, subtypes of sarcoma, squamous NSCLC, TNBC, head and neck cancer and others, thereby supporting our program’s potential to address a broad cancer patient population. Our PRAME peptide is present at a high copy number per tumor cell and is homogenously and specifically expressed in tumor tissue. The peptide has been identified and characterized by our proprietary mass spectrometry-based target discovery platform XPRESIDENT. Through our proprietary TCR discovery and engineering platform XCEPTOR, we have generated a highly specific TCR against this target for its use as TCR-based cell therapy approach ACTengine IMA203.

Patient journey

Starting with clinical trial enrollment, patients enter a multi-step process in our IMA203 trial which consists of three phases shown below: 1) screening of patients and initiating manufacturing of the cell product; 2) treatment of patients and observation for 12 months; 3) long-term follow-up.

^* IL-2 dose reduction from twice daily to daily for the first 5 days and dosing duration from 14 to 10 days introduced prior to treatment of first patients on dose level 3; ¹ Dose reduction of Fludarabine (from 40mg/m² to 30mg/m²) was introduced prior to treatment of the first patient on dose level 3

Patient screening includes testing for the molecular marker HLA-A*02:01 from a patient’s blood sample followed by target profiling by a qPCR-based test from a fresh biopsy. Patients are biopsied and the target expression for PRAME is assessed by our proprietary companion diagnostic device candidate, IMADetect. Only patients whose tumors present the target might benefit from subsequent treatment.

IMADetect is a diagnostic, precision-medicine device screening tumor biopsies for PRAME cancer antigens and other cancer antigens at the same time. The assay is currently conducted in our in-house CLIA-certified and CAP-accredited laboratory at our R&D facility in Houston, Texas and will be developed as companion diagnostics for our product candidates.

65

Only patients that are positive for HLA-A*02:01 and PRAME proceed to leukapheresis, which is the starting point for manufacturing of the autologous engineered T cell product. During leukapheresis, a portion of the patients´ white blood cells is collected, and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (“PBMCs”) are isolated, frozen and then shipped to our central manufacturing site located in Houston, Texas.

Our proprietary manufacturing process is designed to expand and engineer T cells within one week. This process is followed by release testing. We have recently implemented an expedited quality control release testing of one week which allows us to provide the cell products to patients faster. T cells, which are a subset of PBMCs, are activated and subsequently mixed with a lentiviral vector to transduce the T cells with the PRAME-specific TCR. The engineered T cells are then expanded in the presence of cytokines, concentrated and frozen before undergoing release testing. The resulting cell product is then stored frozen until the patient is ready to receive the treatment. T cells can be shipped frozen (“frozen-in-frozen-out”) for both delivery of the patient’s cells to our manufacturing site and shipment of the T cell product to the clinical site.

Patients being refractory to previous treatments receive a preconditioning lymphodepleting regimen (30 mg/m² Fludarabine and 500 mg/m² Cyclophosphamide) for four days prior to infusion with target-specific T cells after day 6. Subsequently, patients receive a low dose Interleukin 2 (IL-2) to enhance T cell activation and expansion following infusion. They are monitored closely for safety and efficacy. Twelve months after T cell infusion or upon earlier disease progression, patients enter long-term follow-up.

Clinical Trial Design

We are currently evaluating ACTengine IMA203 TCR-T in an ongoing Phase 1b trial including three expansion cohorts which have all been initiated during the first half of 2022 and build upon the promising early clinical results during our Phase 1a trial:

Each expansion cohort is designed to establish safety, evaluate the observed objective response rate, demonstrate durability and provide the trigger for registration trials. Data generated throughout 2023 with longer follow-up to assess durability of response is intended to identify the most promising cohort to advance towards pivotal trials and potential commercialization. The ACTengine IMA203 TCR-T Phase 1 design is shown below.

66

¹ RP2D (target dose) determined at DL4 (up to 1.2 x10⁹ TCR-T cells/m² BSA), exploration of higher dose (DL5, up to 4.7x10⁹ TCR-T cells/m² BSA) ongoing; ² Demonstrated to be associated with durable response: Locke et al. 2020 Blood Advances; ³ Opdivo (nivolumab): programmed death-1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint inhibitor; ⁴ Treatment of n=3 patients at DL3 completed; enrollment at DL4a ongoing before continuation at DL4b and potentially DL5; ⁵ Demonstrated to be important for long-term remission: Melenhorst et al. 2022 Nature, Bai et al. 2022 Science Advances;

Dose escalation for IMA203 Phase 1b expansion Cohort C testing our enhanced 2^nd-generation candidate IMA203CD8 is based on a 3+3 design. Dose level (DL) 3 was completed with 3 patients without any dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). In the first patient treated at DL4, we observed very high biological activity (in vivo T cell expansion) accompanied with a DLT, which triggered an expansion of this dose level cohort from 3 patients to 6 patients. As a measure of caution and in accordance with the protocol, we decided to split DL4 into a DL4a (0.481-0.8x10⁹ TCR-T cells/m² BSA) and DL4b (0.801-1.2x10⁹ TCR-T cells/m² BSA). The enrollment in the dose escalation part therefore continues at the intermediate DL4a to understand safety better before continuation at DL4b and potentially DL5.

On October 10, 2022, we announced a clinical data update for the 1^st-generation IMA203 TCR-T monotherapy covering:

The cutoff date for clinical data update is September 6, 2022.

Moving from Phase 1a to Phase 1b, we are continuing to introduce planned improvements that may influence clinical outcomes including (1) applying higher cell doses (DL4 and exploratory DL5), (2) optimizing the cell product through manufacturing enhancements, and (3) working with disease area experts to gradually reduce the fraction of very heavily pre-treated patients with extreme tumor burden who have exhausted standard of care and have undergone multiple clinical trials. In addition, the focus in Phase 1b is also shifting from initial ORR determined at ~6-week scan to confirmed ORR determined at the ~12-week scan.

We observed a higher overall response rate (“ORR”) and confirmed ORR (“cORR”) in patients who received doses above 1 billion TCR-T cells, being dose levels 4 and 5. The table below sets forth the observed overall response rates, as measured by RECIST v1.1:

¹ All patients received >1 billion total TCR-T cells; ² confirmed ORR (cORR), * 1 patient with SD at ~6-week scan with pending ~12-week scan considered as non-responder for cORR; DL – dose level.

67

We observed confirmed objective responses in patients with a broad spectrum of different tumor types, including cutaneous melanoma, ovarian cancer, head and neck cancer, uveal melanoma and synovial sarcoma. The graphs below show the best overall response analysis (BOR) according to established RECIST 1.1 criteria.

* Maximum change of target lesions and RECIST 1.1 BOR response at different time points; #Synovial sarcoma patient (DL3) PD at week 6 not shown as target lesions were not evaluable; PD: Progressive disease; SD: Stable disease; PR: Partial response; cPR: Confirmed partial response; BL: Baseline

In addition, we observed encouraging early signs of improved durability at higher doses and in Phase 1b patients. The graphs below – also known as spider plot analyses - show the change in sum of longest diameter of lesions over time.

# Synovial sarcoma patient (DL3) PD at week 6 not shown 12 as target lesions were not evaluable; PD: Progressive disease; SD: Stable disease; PR: Partial response; cPR: Confirmed partial response; BL: Baseline

We believe that translational data obtained during the IMA203 monotherapy Phase 1a and Phase 1b Cohort A further provide clinical validation of our PRAME biomarker threshold used for patient selection. Confirmed clinical responses were observed at high and low PRAME-expression levels above this threshold, as shown in the following graph. Based on this data we believe, IMA203 has the potential to provide clinical benefit for all PRAME biomarker-positive cancer patients regardless of the PRAME expression level above this threshold.

68

The predicted high PRAME prevalence across key indications has so far been supported by prevalence rates obtained during the clinical screening of patients. Biological data including T cell engraftment, persistence and tumor infiltration were consistent with clinical outcomes, as shown in the following graphs, and support the proposed mechanism of action for IMA203.

Mann-Whitney U test; ¹ T cell infiltration for 19 patients (9 non-responder, 10 responder) with 6-week post infusion biopsy available (1 patient with ~5-week post infusion biopsy)

The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (“TEAEs”) were as expected for cell therapies, and we believe that our 1^st-generation IMA203 TCR-T demonstrated a favorable tolerability profile. Specifically, we observed that:

69

The tables below show the Grade ≥3 TEAEs observed regardless of relatedness to study treatment:

¹ All treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) with ≥ Grade 3 regardless of relatedness to study treatment that occurred in at least 1 patient (except for ICANS, where only Grade 1-2 occurred; listed for completeness due to being an adverse event of special interest) are presented. Adverse events were coded using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities. Grades were determined according to National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events, version 5.0. Grades for CRS and ICANS were determined according to CARTOX criteria (Neelapu et al., 2018). Patients are counted only once per adverse event and severity classification. Based on interim data extracted from open clinical database (06-Sep-2022); ² ICANS: Immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome; ³ DLT: Dose limiting toxicity in phase 1a at DL2 reported on March 17, 2021; ⁴ Fatal Adverse events in N=3 patients were not considered related to any study drug; ⁵ Patient did not receive IMA203 TCR-T cells; * Two patients with disease progression after first IMA203 infusion received exploratory second IMA203 infusion. They had these ≥ Grade 3 TEAEs only after second infusion, which are included in the table: First patient: Abdominal pain, Diarrhoea, Cytokine release syndrome, Hypokalaemia, Proteinuria; Second patient: Fracture, Muscle spasms, Neutropenia, Thrombocytopenia.

We believe the data presented on October 10, 2022 highlight the clinical potential of PRAME as one of the most promising multi-tumor targets for achieving meaningful benefits for a large cancer patient population. The figure below sets forth the potential patient reach of IMA203 TCR-T in selected cancer indications with an exemplified focus on the US population only.    

70

Incidences based on public estimates and Immatics internal model; Relapsed/refractory (R/R) or last-line patient population approximated by annual mortality; Estimated 41% HLA-A*02:01 positive population in the US; PRAME target prevalence is based on TCGA (for SCLC: in-house) RNAseq data combined with a proprietary mass spec-guided RNA expression threshold; Uveal melanoma target prevalence is based on IMADetect qPCR testing of screening biopsies from clinical trial patients (n=21).

We believe IMA203 TCR-T provides multiple further opportunities to benefit a broader group of patients, by:

We are currently transitioning to an indication-specific development strategy for our IMA203 TCR-T trial based on PRAME prevalence, patient population size and observed responses. As a first step we will focus on indications with PRAME prevalence above 80%, such as cutaneous melanoma, uveal melanoma, ovarian and uterine carcinoma as well as uterine carcinosarcoma, where we believe we can quickly initiate registration trials in an effort to progress toward marketing authorization as efficiently as possible. We are also planning to expand to other indications such as head and neck cancer, where we have reported responses, lung cancer and TNBC.

In addition to Cohort A, evaluating IMA203 TCR-T as monotherapy, we are currently investigating IMA203 in two additional Phase 1b dose expansion cohorts to realize the full clinical potential of IMA203 TCR-T targeting PRAME. We are currently prioritizing treatment of patients within the 1^st and 2^nd-generation IMA203 TCR-T monotherapy cohorts.

Cohort B evaluates IMA203 TCR-T in combination with nivolumab, a PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor. Nivolumab has become the standard of care treatment for many solid cancer indications and we believe it fits well into the IMA203 treatment and observation schedule. Through this cohort, we are investigating how the combination with an immune checkpoint inhibitor could enhance the potency of our engineered IMA203 TCR-T cells by blocking the immune-inhibitory PD-1/PD-L1 pathway. We are currently not prioritizing treatment of patients in this last-line setting, but we are considering further investigation of a combination with nivolumab as a frontline therapy.

Cohort C evaluates IMA203CD8, our 2^nd-generation product candidate targeting PRAME, as monotherapy. In contrast to IMA203, IMA203CD8 engages not only CD8 T cells but also CD4 T cells via co-transduction with the CD8 co-receptor involved in T cell antigen recognition and T cell activation. We believe that our

71

IMA203CD8 product candidate has the potential to harness the potency of both CD4 and CD8 T cells. We believe this could further enhance depth and durability of anti-tumor response and clinical outcome of TCR-T in solid cancer patients. We believe we demonstrated the importance of CD4 T cells for the duration of responses in preclinical assays where IMA203CD8 showed enhanced potency and prolonged anti-tumor activity compared to IMA203 alone as shown in the figure below.

Every 3 days IMA203CD8, IMA203 or non-transduced control T cells were rechallenged with fresh tumor cells and tumor fold growth was analyzed. CD8 T cells engineered with the IMA203 TCR or the IMA203 TCR plus CD8 construct (IMA203CD8) achieved comparable tumor cell killing. CD4 T cells were only capable of potent and more durable anti-tumor activity (including 5^th addition of tumor cells) when transduced with IMA203CD8.

These findings are in line with a growing body of literature from CD19 CAR-T cells in hematological cancers that suggest a relevant role of engineered CD4 T cells in maintaining durable anti-tumor responses over a long period. Our proprietary construct incorporated into a lentiviral vector enables CD4 and CD8 T cells to be engineered with the PRAME-specific IMA203 TCR and a CD8αß construct. In the preclinical studies, this approach showed functional superiority over the other CD8 constructs tested in conjunction with the PRAME-specific IMA203 TCR. We have successfully developed the proprietary 4-in-1 construct that includes both IMA203 TCRα and TCRß as well as CD8α and CD8ß chains while maintaining a high transduction rate, circumventing the challenges associated with increasing the lentiviral vector payload.

In addition to the ACTengine IMA203 TCR-T programs, we are addressing PRAME-positive cancers with a second therapeutic modality: TCR Bispecifics. Our TCER IMA402 is a next-generation, half-life extended TCR Bispecific that is expected to enter the clinic in 2023. Both approaches, ACTengine and TCER, are distinct therapeutic modalities that have the potential to provide innovative treatment options for a variety of cancer patient populations with different unmet medical needs and potentially at different stages of their disease.

ACTengine IMA201 – TCR-T Targeting MAGEA4/8

ACTengine IMA201 TCR-T targets an HLA-A*02:01-presented peptide derived from the tumor antigen MAGEA4 and/or MAGEA8 and is currently being evaluated at target dose level in a Phase 1a dose escalation cohort. XPRESIDENT quantitative information on target density (copy number per tumor cell) between peptides originating from the same source protein allows identification of the most relevant targets. By comparing MAGEA4 vs. MAGEA4/A8 peptide presentation on the same tumor samples, we determined that the selected MAGEA4/8 peptide is presented at >5-fold higher target density than a commonly targeted MAGEA4 peptide. We plan to discontinue this program after treatment of the remaining patients already enrolled in the clinical trial in order to focus on the TCR Bispecific program TCER IMA401 addressing the identical target peptide derived from MAGEA4/8 as IMA201.

72

ACTengine IMA202 – TCR-T Targeting MAGEA1

A preliminary interim analysis from 16 patients treated in the dose escalation cohort demonstrated a favorable tolerability profile for IMA202 as of May 24, 2022. Signs of clinical and biological activity were observed, but were not reaching the threshold of objective responses as per RECIST1.1. Treatment-emergent adverse events for IMA202 were transient and manageable, with the most common of such events being expected cytopenia associated with lymphodepletion in all patients (94% ≥ Grade 3). No dose-limiting toxicities or signs of auto-immune toxicities were observed. 11 out of 16 patients (69%) showed disease control and 5 out of 16 patients (31%) showed tumor shrinkage. Maximum change of target lesion was minus 35%. Following final evaluation, Immatics plans to present the full data set at a later timepoint. Immatics management has decided not to further progress the IMA202 program into Phase 1b dose expansion and is evaluating development options and partnering opportunities for the program and the target MAGEA1.

ACTengine IMA204 – TCR-T Targeting Tumor Stroma Target COL6A3 Exon 6

The rigid stroma and the immunosuppressive microenvironment of solid tumors play a crucial role in tumor initiation, progression and metastasis by providing a defensive layer against the body’s immune system and pose a challenge for T cell accessibility. We believe that targeting the tumor stroma could provide a novel approach for the treatment of many solid tumors either as single-agent approach or as part of a next-generation multi-TCR-T concept targeting both tumor and stroma simultaneously.

Our ACTengine program IMA204 is directed against COL6A3 exon 6, a novel, proprietary tumor stroma target identified and characterized by our XPRESIDENT technology platform. COL6A3 exon 6 is presented predominantly by tumor stromal cells and not, or to a far lesser extent, by normal tissues. It is highly prevalent in a broad range of tumor tissues, including pancreatic cancer, breast cancer, gastric cancer, sarcoma, esophageal cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, head & neck squamous cell carcinoma, colorectal cancer, mesothelioma and ovarian cancer, with an estimated 40-80% of such cancers expressing COL6A3 exon 6.

For IMA204, we have generated an affinity-enhanced proprietary TCR, that induces anti-tumor activity in both CD4 and CD8 T cells without the need for CD8 co-transduction in preclinical experiments. Expression of COL6A3 exon 6 in the tumor stroma and in vivo activity of IMA204 is shown below.

Left panel: Expression of the stroma target COL6A3 exon 6 and a tumor target in the same ovarian cancer tissue sample using RNA in situ hybridization. Both pictures show the same image section. Red dots indicate target mRNA expression, which is tumor cell-specific in the case of the tumor target (right) and restricted predominantly to the tumor stroma cells in case of the stroma target, COL6A3 exon 6 (left). Right panel: Affinity-enhanced TCR targeting COL6A3 exon 6 appears to eradicate COL6A3 exon 6-positive tumors implanted in mice, data by Jim Riley, University of Pennsylvania, control: non-transduced T cells.

73

Activation of both T cell types has been reported as favorable for induction and maintenance of anti-tumor responses against solid tumors. In the case of our IMA204 TCR candidate, this next-generation feature of being able to activate both CD8 as well as CD4 T cells is already engineered within the TCR.

We are focusing our clinical resources on the three IMA203 Phase 1b cohorts as well as accelerating the clinical development for the PRAME TCER IMA402. Therefore, as announced in November 2022, we have delayed the IND submission for an ACTengine candidate IMA204.

ACTallo—Our Off-the-shelf TCR-T

We aim to increase the commercial opportunity of cell therapies by supplying products to patients more quickly and at lower cost with our off-the-shelf cell therapy approach, ACTallo. ACTallo is our proprietary allogeneic adoptive cell therapy platform based on gamma delta T cells sourced from healthy donors as shown below.

Our manufacturing process is designed to create hundreds of doses from one single donor leukapheresis. Gamma delta T cells are abundant in the peripheral blood, show intrinsic anti-tumor activity, naturally infiltrate solid tumors and do not cause graft-vs-host disease – characteristics that make this cell type well suited for an allogeneic approach. The ACTallo process engineers gamma delta T cells with CARs or TCRs, thus accessing cancer cell surface targets as well as intracellular proteins that are presented as peptides on the surface of the cancer cell. This aims to enable the redirection of gamma delta T cells to cancer cell targets. ACTallo products would be available for patient treatment without the requirement for personalized manufacturing. Since these T cells originate from healthy individuals, they are not reliant on the potentially encumbered immune system of the cancer patient. In June 2022, we entered into strategic collaborations with Bristol Myers Squibb and Editas Medicine to develop next-generation allogeneic gamma delta TCR-T/CAR-T programs with enhanced persistence, safety and potency by combining our proprietary ACTallo platform with Bristol Myers Squibb’s next-gen technologies and Editas Medicine’s CRISPR gene editing technology.

TCR Bispecifics — TCER

Our half-life extended TCER molecules are next-generation, antibody-like “off-the-shelf” biologics that leverage the body’s immune system by redirecting and activating T cells towards cancer cells expressing a specific tumor target. The design of the TCER molecules enables the activation of any T cell in the body to attack the tumor, regardless of the T cells’ intrinsic specificity. The figure below sets forth the TCER format design and its mechanism of action.

74

These proprietary biologics are engineered with two binding regions: a TCR domain and a T cell recruiter domain. The TCER format is designed to maximize efficacy while minimizing toxicities in patients. It contains a high-affinity TCR domain that is designed to bind specifically to the cancer target peptide on the cell surface presented by an HLA molecule. The antibody-derived, low-affinity T cell recruiter domain is directed against the TCR/CD3 complex and recruits a patient’s T cells to the tumor to attack the cancer cells. With a low-affinity recruiter aiming to optimize biodistribution and enrichment of the molecule at the tumor site instead of the periphery, TCER molecules are engineered to reduce the occurrence of immune-related adverse events, such as cytokine release syndrome. In addition, the TCER format consists of an Fc-part developed to confer half-life extension, stability, and manufacturability. The next-generation, half-life extended TCER format is designed to safely apply high drug doses for activity in a broad range of tumors and to achieve a favorable dosing regimen scheduling regime. TCER are “off-the-shelf” biologics and thus immediately available for patient treatment. They can be distributed through standard pharmaceutical supply chains and provide the opportunity to reach a large patient population without the need for treatment at specialized medical centers.

TCER Format

Improving drug safety, efficacy and dosing schedule are key considerations in the field of bispecific T cell engaging molecules, which we seek to address with our half-life extended next-generation TCR Bispecific molecule. We demonstrated in preclinical experiments that the TCER format had a higher combination of potency and specificity than six alternative TCR Bispecific format designs evaluated. The format was also successfully applied to different TCRs and different T cell recruiting antibodies.

75

The T cell recruiter domain used for all our TCER molecules is a proprietary low-affinity T cell recruiter against the TCR/CD3 complex that demonstrated superior in vivo tumor control compared to three analogous TCER molecules designed with higher-affinity variants of a widely used antibody recruiter as shown below.

¹ Hs695T xenograft model in NOG mice, tumor volume of group means shown

Further, our preclinical data set forth below show a reduced recruiter-mediated cytokine release in vitro when the target is absent, which we believe indicates that our TCER format reduces T cell engager-associated toxicities in patients.

Whole blood cytokine release assay N=3 HLA-A*02-positive donors, N=16 cytokines tested, 4 exemplary cytokines shown.

76

The half-life extended format confers a serum half-life of >1 week in mice, which we believe suggests the opportunity for a favorable dosing regimen and prolonged drug exposure at therapeutic levels when compared to TCR Bispecifics lacking half-life extension approaches. Taken together, our next-generation, half-life extended TCER format is designed to maximize efficacy while minimizing toxicities in patients.

TCER Product Candidates

We have developed a broad pipeline of next-generation half-life extended TCR Bispecifics with the potential for addressing different indications and large patient populations with an innovative therapeutic option.

TCER IMA401

IMA401 is the most advanced product candidate from our TCR Bispecifics pipeline targeting an HLA-A*02:01-presented peptide derived from both MAGEA4 and MAGEA8. The MAGEA4/8 peptide has been identified and validated by our proprietary mass spectrometry-based target discovery platform XPRESIDENT and is presented at a >5-fold higher copy number per tumor cell than a commonly targeted MAGEA4 peptide, and is highly prevalent in several solid tumor types.

Preclinical PoC data demonstrated potent and specific killing of tumor cells in vitro with MAGEA4/8 peptide levels similar to levels found in cancer patients. In two different tumor xenograft mouse studies, a cell line-derived melanoma tumor model and patient-derived non-small cell lung (NSCLC) adenocarcinoma tumor model, IMA401 achieved consistent tumor regression in all mice. In the patient-derived NSCLC model shown below, IMA401 treatment led to consistent tumor regression of all transplanted human tumors, with 3 out of 4 mice showing complete remissions.

The IMA401 molecule further demonstrated pharmacokinetics of a terminal half-life of 10-11 days in mice and what we view as positive purity and stability characteristics with high production yields.

77

In December 2021, we announced that we entered into a license, development and commercialization agreement for IMA401 with BMS. The agreement was associated with an upfront payment of $150 million, milestone payments of up to $770 million and tiered double-digit royalties. We are responsible for conducting the Phase 1a clinical trial for IMA401 and retain the options to co-fund U.S. development in exchange for enhanced U.S. royalty payments and/or to co-promote IMA401 in the U.S.

The Phase 1 clinical trial for IMA401 commenced in the first half of 2022 and is currently ongoing in HLA-A*02:01-positive patients with tumors of high MAGEA4/8 prevalence, such as squamous NSCLC, small cell lung cancer (SCLC), head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), bladder, uterine, esophageal and ovarian carcinomas, as well as melanoma, sarcoma subtypes and other solid cancer types.

The objectives of the clinical trial are to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and/or the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) and to characterize safety and tolerability, evaluate initial anti-tumor activity and assess pharmacokinetics of IMA401. The Phase 1 trial consists of a dose escalation (Phase 1a) cohort that will be followed by a dose expansion (Phase 1b) cohort to treat patients at the recommended dose level.

TCER IMA402

Our TCER IMA402 is directed against the same peptide derived from PRAME as used for ACTengine IMA203. PRAME is one of the most frequently expressed targets and highly prevalent in several solid tumor types, such as melanoma, uveal melanoma, uterine cancers, ovarian cancer, subtypes of sarcoma, squamous NSCLC, TNBC, head and neck cancer, among other indications.

In preclinical studies, data demonstrated potent and selective cytotoxicity of IMA402 against tumor cell lines presenting PRAME target peptide-HLA at different target densities (target peptide copies per cell). While physiological PRAME levels detected in the majority of cancer tissues from patients are in the range of 100 – 1000 copies per cell, IMA402 showed tumor cell killing at PRAME peptide levels as low as 50 copies per cell, as shown below.

CpC: Target peptide copy numbers per tumor cell

78

In vitro safety assessment including toxicity screening against 20 normal tissue types, whole blood cytokine release assessment and alloreactivity evaluation confirmed the favorable safety profile for IMA402.

In vivo studies in mice set forth below demonstrated a dose-dependent anti-tumor activity of IMA402 and that sufficiently high drug doses are key to achieving the desired anti-tumor effects over a prolonged period.

Melanoma cell line-derived tumors in MHC I/II knock-out NSG mice received weekly intravenous injections of IMA402 starting at study day 1 after intravenous transfusion of human PBMC. Treatment was discontinued when complete response was noted. Median values for n = 6 mice/group, 2 donors/group.

Pharmacokinetic characteristics of the half-life extended IMA402 molecule with a terminal half-life of >1 week in vivo, as shown below, suggest the potential for a favorable dosing regimen in patients with prolonged drug exposure at therapeutic levels.

NOG mice received a single intravenous injection of IMA402 (2 mg/kg). TCER plasma concentrations at different time points were determined by ELISA detecting binding of IMA402 to the PRAME target via pHLA. The integrity of the molecule was confirmed via aV_L or aFc detection. Terminal half-life (t_1/2) was calculated via linear regression of time points between 24 h and 360 h (n=3 per timepoint, mean ± SD).

Data generated in the field of T cell engaging bispecifics suggest that half-life extension and low-affinity CD3 recruiters are key strategies to improve safety and efficacy of bispecific molecules. We believe, our TCER molecules are the first TCR-based bispecifics candidates in clinical development where these strategies were applied.

79

Based upon our preclinical data for IMA402, we believe that our next-generation, half-life extended format using a low-affinity T cell recruiter can achieve higher doses with drug concentrations in the therapeutic relevant range over time, increased pressure on the tumor, more and deeper responses across a broad range of indications, including in tumors with lower target levels, and a more convenient treatment schedule combined with acceptable tolerability.

To enable the start of the Phase 1/2 trial in 2023, we have completed the preclinical data package and manufacturing of the clinical batch in 2022. We plan to use a flexible design for the Phase 1/2 trial that provides the opportunity to shorten the clinical development timeline of IMA402: The dose escalation cohort has an adaptive design that uses flexible dose cohorts and an optimized MABEL (minimal anticipated biological effect level) approach. HLA-A*02:01-positive patients with different solid tumors expressing PRAME will initially receive weekly infusions of IMA402. Pharmacokinetics data will be assessed throughout the trial and might provide an early opportunity for adjustment of the treatment interval based on the half-life extended TCER format. The Phase 2a dose expansion part of the trial is planned to include several cohorts to further evaluate IMA402 in specific indications and combination therapies. Submission of the CTA* is planned for 2Q 2023 and the start of the trial is planned for 2H 2023.

*Clinical Trial Application (CTA) is the European equivalent of an Investigational New Drug (IND) application

Technology Platforms

To characterize our proprietary and partnered product candidates and to identify and develop future TCR-based product candidates, we established two proprietary target and TCR discovery platforms: XPRESIDENT and XCEPTOR. We believe that for the development of safe and effective TCR-based immunotherapeutics, two fundamental steps illustrated below are required (i) picking a true cancer target that is naturally occurring and presented at significant levels specifically on the tumor, and (ii) generating the right, potent TCR that specifically recognizes the selected target with no or minimized cross-reactivity with healthy tissues.

We have identified a pool of more than 200 well-known and unknown cancer targets that have the potential for further development of proprietary and partnered assets and allow us to build a unique position in complementary T cell therapies – ACT and TCR Bispecifics- to maximize value generation.

XPRESIDENT Discovers True Targets for Cancer Immunotherapy

XPRESIDENT integrates a high-throughput, ultra-sensitive mass spectrometry coupled with a proprietary workflow and an immunoinformatics platform. It builds on a primary tissue database of thousands of tissues.

80

From these specimens, a multitude of data is being gathered, including genome, proteome and in-depth transcriptome. The core of the database is its quantitative immunopeptidome data set, which enables the selection of true cancer targets. To our knowledge, this is the largest collection of pHLA target information derived both from cancer and healthy tissues.

Utilizing this foundation, we believe that XPRESIDENT identifies “true target” peptides for TCR-based immunotherapies that are proven to be displayed on patient tumors and that are not present, or present to a far lesser extent, on normal tissues. We utilize the natural mechanisms of the immune system, by leveraging on the TCR– pHLA interaction, to access intra- and extracellular cancer targets that are invisible to classical antibody or CAR-T therapies. By picking our targets from the full immunopeptidome, a target space increased by 300% as compared to the membrane-bound or extracellular peptidome, we developed a pool of more than 200 prioritized cancer targets across different target classes. These targets originate from well-known parent proteins, widely uncharacterized proteins and novel target spaces including non-classical neoantigens, RNA-edited or post-translationally modified epitopes, which we call “crypto targets”. Our prioritized targets, that have been filed in numerous patent applications, add value to our current pipeline and form a powerful source for future product candidates. We select cancer targets not only based on their prevalence and specificity to a given tumor indication, but also based on their presentation level per tumor cell. Target presentation at sufficient density per tumor cell is a key component required for mounting an efficient anti-tumor response, especially for TCR Bispecifics but also for ACT. To our knowledge, the absolute quantitation of the target (“AbsQuant”) on the tumor cell is a unique capability solely available through XPRESIDENT.

By investigating dozens of tissues for each cancer indication, XPRESIDENT is not limited by an individual tumor of a specific cancer type, but instead analyzes a broad cross-section of the cancer patient population. It has been designed to both select targets that are not only naturally presented by a given tumor at high target density and also to analyze the prevalence of target presentation among all analyzed tissues. Before entering clinical development, only targets relevant for a significant percentage of patients of a given cancer type are moved forward and are thoroughly characterized prior to or in parallel to TCR identification.

XPRESIDENT’s extensive pHLA database is based on more than 2,500 primary tissue samples from 40 healthy organ types and 20 major cancer indications. As shown below, following an analysis of over 500,000,000 MS/MS spectra and an initial long-list of 8,500 tumor-associated pHLA targets, we have prioritized over 200 mass spectrometry validated pHLA targets covering all target classes: 1) peptides of well-known and characterized cancer target proteins; 2) unknown or poorly characterized proteins and 3) crypto targets/neoantigens.

81

XPRESIDENT has identified and characterized cancer targets for all of our clinical and preclinical programs across our entire individual and partnered pipeline. Each of our pipeline programs is currently targeting HLA-A*02:01, which is found in approximately 40-50% of individuals in North America and Europe and in approximately 20-35% of individuals in East Asia, and is one of the most common HLA types worldwide. However, XPRESIDENT is not restricted to HLA-A*02 and has identified a large set of cancer targets across many different HLA alleles, such as HLA-A*01/ -A*03/ -A*24/ -B*07/ -B*44. By developing target-TCR pairs beyond HLA-A*02, we seek to expand the patient population that might benefit from our product candidates as broadly as possible.

XCEPTOR Identifies, Optimizes and Characterizes Right TCRs for TCR-T and TCR Bispecifics

XCEPTOR is our proprietary, TCR identification platform enabling the discovery and engineering of TCRs with high affinity and specificity. Apart from the fast, efficient and highly sensitive TCR identification and characterization, XCEPTOR also comprises a protein engineering module to optimize (e.g., chain pairing enhancement, engineering towards CD8 independency) and affinity-enhance TCRs prior to sourcing our product candidates.

As shown in the figure above, XCEPTOR picks and optionally engineers the most suitable TCRs for ACT or Bispecific product candidates:

Irrespective of whether a TCR will be used for ACT or TCR Bispecific, we start the TCR discovery process with a variety of TCRs against a specific cancer target, characterize the receptors and select the TCRs with the most desirable affinity, potency, specificity, and safety characteristics. During the characterization process, we not only determine the binding motif of the TCRs and ensure functional efficacy at physiological cancer target levels, but also evaluate the TCRs’ ability to avoid similar peptides that are presented on healthy tissues. We also test for potential reactivity against a broad panel of healthy tissues covering critical organs, multiple different cell types and organ-specific cell types.

The entire TCR selection and characterization process is guided by the XPRESIDENT peptide target database. The extensive information available on the HLA peptidome in normal tissues is specifically useful for determining potential on- and off-target toxicities, i.e. potential recognition by a TCR of target peptides and/or

82

similar peptides that are presented on healthy tissues (=XPRESIDENT-guided on- and off-target toxicity screening). Also, during TCR maturation the information on similar peptides presented on healthy tissues is helpful to counter-screen for cross-reactive TCRs (=XPRESIDENT-guided similar peptide screening). TCRs recognizing healthy tissues would be a potential threat for the wellbeing of patients and therefore are de-selected early during preclinical development and allow us to focus on the most specific and promising TCRs as early as possible in the development process.

Manufacturing & Supply

ACTengine

All clinical T cell products are currently manufactured by our employees through a collaboration with the Evelyn H. Griffin Stem Cell Therapeutics Research Laboratory at UTHealth (“UTH”) McGovern Medical School in Houston, Texas that provides us exclusive access to three cGMP manufacturing suites and support areas for the manufacturing of our cell products.

To scale our cell therapies for pivotal trials and initial commercial manufacturing, we have started the construction of a state-of-the-art 100,000 square foot research and commercial GMP manufacturing facility in the metropolitan area of Houston, Texas. The facility is intended to manufacture our IMA203 products as well as other future autologous and allogeneic cell therapy product candidates for early-stage and registration-directed clinical trials as well as for commercial supply. The facility is designed for flexibility and can be expanded in a modular fashion. The GMP manufacturing facility is expected to be operational in 2024.

To secure our supply, we have contractual agreements in place with two GMP suppliers of lentiviral vectors, which is the most critical raw material for the manufacturing of genetically modified T cells products.

TCER

TCER are expressed in mammalian cells. We have established an in-house laboratory-scale production process to generate R&D material suitable for compound characterization and early preclinical assessments. In the course of preclinical development, the manufacturing process is turned over to third party contract manufacturing organizations (“CMOs”) that are experienced in cGMP manufacturing of biologics and regulatory compliance. The IND-enabling studies (e.g., in vitro toxicology studies) are performed with material that we receive from CMOs.

The manufacturing phase at our CMOs includes cell line development, establishment of master- and working cell banks, upstream and downstream process development, formulation development, development of suitable analytical methods for testing and release, cGMP manufacturing, fill and finish, drug substance and drug product release testing, storage and stability testing.

An in-house chemistry, manufacturing and control (“CMC”) team guides and manages the processes at our CMOs through the different stages. Before and during the cooperation with a CMO, we conduct audits to control compliance with the mutually agreed process descriptions and to cGMP regulations. Our CMOs themselves are subject to their own quality assurance functions and are inspected and certified by regulatory agencies, including European national agencies and the FDA. For the development of each TCER candidate, our CMOs need to scale the manufacturing process to suitable size. Drug formulation and process parameters need to be optimized and the manufacturing process qualified by applicable regulatory authorities. In addition to the currently contracted CMOs, we expect to engage with additional third-party manufacturers and suppliers to support potential pivotal trials and potential commercial supplies.

83

Marketing and Sales

We currently do not have our own marketing, sales or distribution capabilities. We intend to maximize the commercial potential of any approved product candidates by developing a sales and marketing infrastructure or by pursuing strategic collaborations with commercialization partners.

Competition

Immunotherapy and the companies and academic groups using TCR-based or TCR mimetic approaches against cancer are rapidly evolving. While we believe that our technology platforms, therapeutic modalities and scientific knowledge provide us with a competitive advantage, we also face significant competition.

Other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies are active in the field of TCR therapies, intending to target solid tumors following the success of CAR-T therapies in hematology. Companies developing other immunotherapies such as CAR-T, bispecific antibodies, or immune checkpoint inhibitors may show that their products demonstrate significant improvement in efficacy and compete with our approach and product candidates.

Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize would compete with currently approved therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. Our competitors fall primarily into the following groups, depending on their treatment approach:

Many of the companies against which we may compete have significantly larger financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than us. 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 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

We recognize the need for a global intellectual property strategy to protect our technology, future products and assets around the world. Consistent with our belief in intellectual property, our patent portfolio is a strategically important asset covering a large number of cancer antigen targets, TCRs, bispecific molecules or TCERs, antibodies, target validation, screening and therapeutic use methods, as well as antigen discovery platforms. Our intellectual property portfolio includes patents in many commercially significant jurisdictions such as Europe, the United States, Canada, China, Japan, Australia, and others. For technologies with potential for the highest commercial impact, our patent filing covers more than 50 countries.

84

As of February 1, 2023, our patent portfolio comprises more than 115 active patent families and over 5,800 patents and patent applications worldwide. We own over 2,400 patents worldwide, including more than 550 U.S. patents. We plan to continue expanding our U.S. patent portfolio to further strengthen the protection of our lead projects.

At present, IP protection for our product candidates, encompassing proprietary cancer antigen targets, TCRs, TCERs and antibodies, includes the following:

85

Further, we pursue patent protection for different aspects of our ACT technology and methods, which also relate and thus confer protection to the clinical projects, IMA201 to IMA204, IMA401 and IMA402. To this end, our subsidiary, Immatics US, has filed and owns 23 patent families. These patents and patent applications are predominantly focused on ACT methods, cell populations, and other immunotherapy methodologies. If issued, these patents and patent applications are expected to expire between 2038 and 2043, in each case without taking into account any possible patent term adjustment or extensions and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity or other governmental fees.

We also place an emphasis on protecting our expanding brand recognition by filing and registering trademark applications throughout the world. We own 20 different trademarks, most of which are registered or have been allowed, in multiple countries and trademark product and services classes. Prominent trademarks are, for example, Immatics, XPRESIDENT, TCER, XCEPTOR, ACTallo and ACTengine.

Collaborations and Other Agreements

We have forged strategic collaborations with biotech and pharmaceutical companies as well as academic research institutions. Key collaborations include (in order of occurrence with the latest collaboration first):

Editas

In June 2022, we and Editas entered into a strategic collaboration and licensing agreement to combine our gamma delta T cell adoptive cell therapies with Editas’ CRISPR gene editing technology.

Under the terms of the agreement, Editas Medicine received an undisclosed upfront cash payment and is eligible to receive additional milestone payments based on development, regulatory, and commercial milestones. In addition, we will pay royalties on future net sales on any products that may result from this collaboration.

Bristol Myers Squibb

In August 2019, we and Celgene Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of BMS, entered into a strategic collaboration and license agreement to develop novel adoptive cell therapies targeting multiple cancers. Under the agreement, we may develop TCR-T programs against solid tumor targets discovered by our XPRESIDENT technology. We will utilize proprietary TCRs identified by our XCEPTOR TCR discovery and engineering platform. We will be responsible for the development of these programs through the lead candidate stage, at which time BMS may exercise its option to exclusively license one or more programs, thereby assuming sole responsibility for further worldwide development, manufacturing and commercialization of the TCR-T cell therapies. We retain certain early stage co-development and co-funding rights for selected TCR-T cell therapies arising from the collaboration.

Under the terms of the agreement, we received an upfront payment of $75 million for three programs and are eligible to receive additional regulatory and sales milestones in aggregate amounts of up to $190 million, and $300 million, respectively, as well as tiered royalties based on net sales for each licensed product at percentages ranging from high single digits to teens, subject to customary reductions. BMS has the option to exclusively license up to two additional targets to expand the collaboration at predetermined economics.

86

On June 2, 2022, we expanded our 2019 collaboration agreement with BMS to include one additional TCR target discovered by Immatics. As part of this expansion, we have received an upfront payment of $20 million and will be eligible for milestone payments and royalties.

On June 2, 2022, Immatics and BMS also entered into a new collaboration to develop allogeneic TCR-T/CAR-T programs, bringing together our allogeneic gamma delta T cell therapy platform ACTallo with BMS’ technologies and oncology drug development expertise. Under this collaboration, the parties will develop two programs owned by BMS and both companies have an option to develop up to four additional programs each. The programs will utilize our proprietary gamma delta T cell-derived, allogeneic ACT platform, called ACTallo, and a suite of next-generation technologies developed by BMS.

Under the terms of this agreement, we have received an upfront payment of $60 million and are eligible for development, regulatory and commercial milestone payments of up to $700 million per BMS program plus tiered royalty payments of up to low double-digit percentages on net product sales. We will be responsible for preclinical development of the initial two BMS-owned programs and will receive additional payment for certain activities that we could perform at BMS’ request. BMS will assume responsibility for clinical development and commercialization activities of all BMS-owned programs thereafter.

On December 10, 2021, we entered into a License, Development and Commercialization Agreement with BMS relating to our TCR Bispecific candidate, IMA401. Pursuant to the agreement, we granted to BMS an exclusive, worldwide, sublicensable license to develop, manufacture, and commercialize IMA401 and certain other bispecific and multispecific molecules that bind to a MAGEA4/A8 peptide and engage and activate endogenous T-cells or other immune cells for any diagnostic, prophylactic or therapeutic uses, excluding cell therapy and cell therapy products. BMS granted us a non-exclusive, perpetual, worldwide, sublicensable, royalty-free license to certain BMS Company patents and know-how that are improvements to our platform technology that may be generated by Bristol-Myers Squibb in the performance of activities under the agreement.

In consideration for such licenses, we received an upfront payment of $150 million and will be eligible to receive milestone payments of up to $770 million upon the achievement of certain development, regulatory and commercial milestones. In addition, during the royalty term, we will be eligible to receive tiered, low double-digit percentage royalties on worldwide net sales of licensed products. We have the option in certain instances to co-fund the development of the licensed products for the United States. If exercised, we will be responsible for a portion of the U.S. development expenses incurred by BMS and will be eligible to receive tiered, low double-digit percentage royalties on U.S. net sales of licensed products that are higher than those if we did not exercise its U.S. development co-funding option. The royalty percentages described above are subject to reduction in a given country under certain circumstances, including, but not limited to, the introduction of biosimilar products. In addition, we have the option to co-promote approved licensed products in the United States. Under the agreement, we will be responsible for, and will bear the cost of, the first Phase 1 clinical trial in Germany for the first licensed product and for performing certain related preclinical studies and CMC-related development activities. BMS will be responsible for, and will bear the cost of, performing all other development and commercialization activities, subject to our U.S. development co-funding option and U.S. co-promote option described above. The Agreement will expire upon expiration of the last royalty term contemplated by the agreement. A royalty term with respect to a licensed product in a given country begins upon the first commercial sale of such licensed product in such country and terminates upon certain events or at the end of certain time periods relevant to such licensed product, including, but not limited to: the expiration of regulatory exclusivity, the expiration of valid patent claims covering such licensed product, and 10 years after first commercial sale of the licensed product in a given country. The agreement has market termination provisions, including termination by BMS of the agreement in its entirety or on a country-by-country basis for convenience upon prior written notice or by BMS for safety reasons. Each party may terminate for uncured breach by the other party, or for the insolvency of the other party. During the term, we will not develop, manufacture or commercialize products which would directly compete with the licensed products, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the agreement.

87

GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”)

On October 24, 2022, GSK provided Immatics with notice of its decision to terminate their collaboration. Initially announced on February 20, 2020, the terms of the agreement included a €45 Million upfront payment to Immatics and the potential for additional milestone and royalty payments in return for access to two of Immatics’ TCR-T programs. As communicated to Immatics, GSK’s decision was made unrelated to the programs and the progress achieved in the collaboration to date. The termination became effective on December 26, 2022.

Following termination, Immatics regained the subject proprietary TCRs identified by our XCEPTOR technology, which were directed against two proprietary targets discovered by XPRESIDENT.

Genmab

In July 2018, we and Genmab entered into a research collaboration and license agreement to develop next-generation, T cell engaging bispecific immunotherapies targeting multiple cancer indications. Under the agreement, we are conducting joint research, funded by Genmab, and combining XPRESIDENT, XCEPTOR and TCER technology platforms with Genmab’s proprietary antibody technologies to develop multiple bispecific immunotherapies in oncology. Effective January 2, 2023 and for strategic reasons, Genmab provided Immatics with notice of its decision to terminate one program under the collaboration. Both we and Genmab are exclusively discovering and developing immunotherapies directed against two proprietary targets, discovered and developed by our XPRESIDENT platform. Genmab is responsible for development, manufacturing and worldwide commercialization. We retain an option to contribute certain promotion efforts at predetermined levels in selected countries in the EU.

Under the terms of the agreement, we received an upfront fee of $54 million and are eligible to receive additional development, regulatory and commercial milestone payments, totaling $550 million for each licensed product resulting from the collaboration. In addition, we are eligible to receive tiered royalties on net sales for each licensed product at up to double-digit percentages.

UTHealth

We entered into a multi-year collaboration agreement to secure exclusive access to three UTHealth cGMP suites to manufacture various ACT products within the Griffin Research Laboratory. Under the agreement, general facility operations, maintenance, supply and reagents for cGMP manufacture, and co-release of product is provided by UTHealth. Under the agreement, we perform all manufacturing and in-process controls. The UTHealth facility is FDA registered to produce cells and tissues for clinical applications in compliance with cGMP and has received accreditation by the FACT in January 2016, which was renewed in 2019. In August 2020 UTHealth and Immatics extended the collaboration until the end of 2024 providing Immatics exclusive access to cGMP manufacturing infrastructure at The Evelyn H. Griffin Stem Cell Therapeutics Research Laboratory. The extended collaboration ensures continued clinical batch supply for all of Immatics’ ongoing and future ACT clinical trials in the United States and Europe.

MD Anderson Cancer Center

In August 2015, we and The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (“MD Anderson”) announced the launch of Immatics US to develop multiple T cell and TCR-based adoptive cellular therapies. Immatics US secured over $60 million in total funding – more than $40 million from the parent company Immatics OpCo and a $19.7 million grant from the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (“CPRIT”) and entered into several agreements, including a restricted stock purchase agreement, several license agreements and a collaboration and license agreement.

Under the collaboration and license agreement (the “MD Anderson Collaboration Agreement”), MD Anderson and Immatics US conduct work pursuant to agreed research plans to develop (i) IMA101 and

88

(ii) ACTengine IMA201, 202, 203 product candidates in certain cancer indications. Immatics US funds all activities by MD Anderson under the research plans.

Pursuant to the terms of the MD Anderson Collaboration Agreement, MD Anderson granted Immatics US a fully paid-up, royalty-free, non-exclusive, sublicensable license under certain technology, patent rights and know-how controlled by MD Anderson relating to the development and manufacturing of T-cell based therapies to perform activities under the MD Anderson Collaboration Agreement. Immatics US granted MD Anderson a fully paid-up, royalty-free, non-exclusive, sublicensable license under certain technology, patent rights and know-how controlled by Immatics US, including intellectual property created under the MD Anderson Collaboration Agreement, to perform activities under the MD Anderson Collaboration Agreement and a fully paid-up, royalty-free, non-exclusive, sublicensable license under technology, patent rights and know-how created under the MD Anderson Collaboration Agreement for research purposes during the term of the MD Anderson Collaboration Agreement. Immatics US owns all intellectual property resulting from or directly related to the work conducted under the research plans, provided such ownership does not result in any violation of law or adversely impact the University of Texas system’s tax exempt status.

The MD Anderson Collaboration Agreement will continue until the completion of all research activities contemplated by applicable research plans, unless terminated earlier. MD Anderson has the right to terminate the MD Anderson Collaboration Agreement for Immatics US’s material breach following a certain cure period.

Other Agreements

We entered into a number of collaborations that are important for our ability to manufacture, supply and offer our adoptive cell therapies and TCR Bispecifics.

We use several third-party contract manufacturers acting in accordance with FDA’s good laboratory practice (“GLP”) or cGMP, as applicable, practices for the manufacture of viral vectors and cell bank development. We generally apply second-supplier strategies to mitigate supply risks and to secure access to manufacturing innovation and competitive supply costs.

For manufacturing and supply of TCR Bispecifics, we have contracted third party manufacturers and may enter into additional CMO relationships in the future.

Government Regulation

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state, and local level, and in other countries and jurisdictions, including the EU, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, post-approval monitoring and reporting, as well as import and export of biological products. Some jurisdictions also regulate the pricing of medicinal products. The processes for obtaining marketing approvals in the United States and in foreign countries and jurisdictions, along with compliance with applicable statutes and regulations, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

Licensure and Regulation of Biologics in the United States

In the United States, biological products, including gene therapy products, are regulated under the Public Health Service Act (“PHSA”) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), and their implementing regulations as well as other federal, state and local statutes and regulations.

The failure of an applicant to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements at any time during the product development process, including during testing, the approval process or post-approval process, may result in delays to the conduct of a study, regulatory review and approval, and/or administrative or judicial sanctions.

89

Failure to comply with regulatory requirements may result in the FDA’s refusal to allow an applicant to proceed with clinical trials, refusal to approve pending applications, license suspension or revocation, withdrawal of an approval, warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, and civil or criminal investigations and penalties brought by the FDA or Department of Justice (“DOJ”), or other government entities, including state agencies.

An applicant seeking to market and distribute a new biologic in the United States generally must satisfactorily complete each of the following steps before the product candidate will be licensed by the FDA:

Preclinical Studies and Investigational New Drug Application

Before an applicant begins testing a product candidate with potential therapeutic value in humans, the product candidate enters preclinical testing. Preclinical studies include studies to evaluate, among other things, the toxicity of the product candidate. The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements, as applicable, including GLP regulations. Some long-term preclinical testing, such as animal tests of reproductive adverse events and carcinogenicity, and long-term toxicity studies, may continue after the IND is submitted.

The IND and IRB Processes

An IND is an exemption from the FDCA that allows an unapproved product candidate to be shipped in interstate commerce for use in an investigational clinical trial and a request for FDA authorization to administer such investigational product to humans. In support of a request for an IND, applicants must submit a protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. In addition, the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and plans for clinical trials, among other things, must be submitted to the FDA as part of an IND. The FDA requires a 30-day waiting period after the filing of each IND before clinical trials may begin. This waiting period is designed to allow the FDA to review the IND to determine whether human research subjects will be exposed to unreasonable health risks. At any time during this 30-day period the FDA may raise concerns or questions about the conduct of the trials as outlined in the IND and impose a clinical hold

90

or partial clinical hold. A clinical hold is an order issued by the FDA to the sponsor to delay a proposed clinical investigation or to suspend an ongoing investigation. A partial clinical hold is a delay or suspension of only part of the clinical work requested under the IND. In this case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before clinical trials can begin.

Following commencement of a clinical trial, the FDA may also place a clinical hold or partial clinical hold on that trial. No more than 30 days after imposition of a clinical hold or partial clinical hold, the FDA will provide the sponsor a written explanation of the basis for the hold. Following issuance of a clinical hold or partial clinical hold, an investigation may only resume after the FDA has notified the sponsor that the investigation may proceed.

A sponsor may choose, but is not required, to conduct a foreign clinical trial under an IND. When a foreign clinical trial is conducted under an IND, all FDA IND requirements must be met unless waived. When a foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor must ensure that the study complies with certain regulatory requirements of the FDA in order to use the study as support for an IND or application for marketing approval or licensing. In particular, such studies must be conducted in accordance with cGCP, including review and approval by an independent ethics committee (“IEC”) and obtaining informed consent from subjects. The FDA must be able to validate the data through an onsite inspection, if deemed necessary by the FDA.

An IRB representing each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve among other things, the study protocol and informed consent information to be provided to study subjects before it commences at that institution, and the IRB must conduct continuing review and reapprove the study at least annually. An IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution, or an institution it represents, if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the product candidate has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

Clinical trials including the use of an investigational device sometimes require submission of an application for an Investigational Device Exemption (“IDE”), to the FDA. The IDE application must be supported by appropriate data, such as animal and laboratory testing results, showing that it is safe to test the device in humans and that the investigational protocol is scientifically sound. The IDE application must be approved in advance by the FDA, unless the product is deemed a non-significant risk device and eligible for more abbreviated IDE requirements. Clinical trials for a significant risk device may begin once the IDE application is approved by the FDA as well as the appropriate IRBs at the clinical trial sites, and the informed consent of the patients participating in the clinical trial is obtained.

Progress reports detailing the status of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA. In addition, IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA for any of the following: serious and unexpected suspected adverse reactions; findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk in humans exposed to the product; and any clinically important increase in the case of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with cGCP and the integrity of the clinical data submitted.

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 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.

91

Clinical Trials in Support of a BLA

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product candidate to human subjects under the supervision of a qualified investigator in accordance with GCP requirements which include, among other things, the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing before their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under written clinical trial protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, inclusion and exclusion criteria, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and the effectiveness and safety criteria to be evaluated.

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

While the FDA requires in most cases two adequate and well-controlled pivotal clinical trials to demonstrate the efficacy of a product candidate, a single trial with strong confirmatory evidence may be sufficient in instances where the trial is a large multicenter trial demonstrating internal consistency and a statistically very persuasive finding of a clinically meaningful effect on mortality, irreversible morbidity or prevention of a disease with a potentially serious outcome and confirmation of the result in a second trial would be practically or ethically impossible. In rare cancer indications with very limited treatment options a large and/or controlled trial are often not feasible and thus data from smaller and even uncontrolled trials may be sufficient for regulatory approval.

In some cases, the FDA may approve a BLA for a product candidate but require the sponsor to conduct additional clinical trials to further assess the product candidate’s safety and effectiveness after approval. Such post-approval trials are typically referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials. These studies are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of a larger number of patients in the intended treatment group and to further document a clinical benefit in the case of biologics licensed 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.

Review and Approval of a BLA

In order to obtain approval to market a biological product in the United States, a biologics license application must be submitted to the FDA that provides sufficient data establishing the safety and efficacy of the proposed biological product for its intended indication. The BLA includes all relevant data available from pertinent preclinical studies and clinical trials, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls and proposed labeling, among other things.

Under federal law, the submission of most BLAs is subject to an application user fee, which for federal fiscal year 2023 is $3,242,026 for an application requiring clinical data. The sponsor of an approved BLA is also

92

subject to an annual program fee, which for fiscal year 2023 is $393,933. Certain exceptions and waivers are available for some of these fees, such as an exception from the application fee for products with orphan designation and a waiver for certain small businesses.

Following submission of a BLA, the FDA conducts a preliminary review of the application generally within 60 calendar days of its receipt and strives to inform the sponsor by the 74th day after the FDA’s receipt of the submission whether the application is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept the application for filing. In this event, the application must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application is also subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review. The FDA has agreed to specified performance goals in the review process of the BLAs. Under that agreement, 90% of original BLA submissions are meant to be reviewed within ten months of the 60-day filing date, and 90% of original BLAs that have been designated for “priority review” are meant to be reviewed within six months of the 60-day filing date. The review process may be extended once per review cycle by the FDA for three additional months to consider new information or clarification provided by the applicant to address an outstanding deficiency identified by the FDA following the original submission.

Before approving an application, the FDA will typically audit the preclinical study and clinical trial sites that generated the data in support of the BLA. Additionally, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is or will be manufactured. These pre-approval inspections may cover all facilities associated with a BLA submission, including component manufacturing, finished product manufacturing and control testing laboratories. The FDA will not approve an application 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.

As a condition of approval, the FDA may require an applicant to develop a Risk Evaluation Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”). REMS use risk minimization strategies beyond the professional labeling to ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh the potential risks. To determine whether a REMS is needed, the FDA will consider the size of the population likely to use the product, seriousness of the disease, expected benefit of the product, expected duration of treatment, seriousness of known or potential adverse events and whether the product is a new molecular entity.

The FDA will refer an application for a novel product to an advisory committee or explain why such referral was not made. Typically, an advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy, Priority Review and Regenerative Advanced Therapy Designations

The FDA is authorized to designate certain products for expedited review if they are intended to address an unmet medical need in the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. These programs are referred to as Fast Track designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation, Priority Review designation and Regenerative Advanced Therapy designation.

Specifically, the FDA may designate a product for Fast Track designation if it is intended, whether alone or in combination with one or more other products, for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and it demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. For Fast Track products, sponsors may have greater interactions with the FDA and the FDA may initiate review of sections of a Fast Track product’s application before the application is complete. This rolling review may be available if the FDA determines, after preliminary evaluation of clinical data submitted by the sponsor, that a Fast Track product may be effective. The sponsor must also provide, and the FDA must approve, a schedule for

93

the submission of the remaining information and the sponsor must pay applicable user fees. However, the FDA’s time period goal for reviewing a Fast Track application does not begin until the last section of the application is submitted. In addition, the Fast Track designation may be withdrawn by the FDA if the FDA believes that the designation is no longer supported by data emerging in the clinical trial process.

Second, a product may be designated as a Breakthrough Therapy if it is intended, either alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The FDA may take certain actions with respect to Breakthrough Therapies, including holding meetings with the sponsor throughout the development process; providing timely advice to the product sponsor regarding development and approval; involving more senior staff in the review process; assigning a cross-disciplinary project lead for the review team; and taking other steps to design the clinical trials in an efficient manner.

Third, the FDA may designate a product for Priority Review if it is a product that treats a serious condition and, if licensed, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. The FDA determines, on a case-by-case basis, whether the proposed product represents a significant improvement when compared with other available therapies. Significant improvement may be illustrated by evidence of increased effectiveness in the treatment of a condition, elimination or substantial reduction of a treatment-limiting product reaction, documented enhancement of patient compliance that may lead to improvement in serious outcomes, and evidence of safety and effectiveness in a new subpopulation. A priority designation is intended to direct overall attention and resources to the evaluation of such applications, and to shorten the FDA’s goal for taking action on a marketing application from ten months to six months.

The FDA can accelerate review and approval of products designated as regenerative advanced therapies. A product is eligible for this designation if it is a regenerative medicine therapy that is intended to treat, modify, reverse or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product has the potential to address unmet medical needs for such disease or condition. The benefits of a regenerative advanced therapy designation include early interactions with FDA to expedite development and review, benefits available to breakthrough therapies, potential eligibility for Priority Review and Accelerated Approval based on surrogate or intermediate endpoints.

Accelerated Approval Pathway

The FDA may grant Accelerated Approval to a product for a serious or life-threatening condition that provides meaningful therapeutic advantage to patients over existing treatments, based upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA may also grant Accelerated Approval for such a condition when the product has an effect on an intermediate clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality (“IMM”) and that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on IMM or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. Products granted Accelerated Approval must meet the same statutory standards for safety and effectiveness as those granted traditional approval.

For the purposes of Accelerated Approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign, or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. Surrogate endpoints can often be measured more easily or more rapidly than clinical endpoints. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a measurement of a therapeutic effect that is considered reasonably likely to predict the clinical benefit of a drug, such as an effect on IMM. The FDA has indicated that intermediate clinical endpoints generally may support Accelerated Approval where the therapeutic

94

effect measured by the endpoint is not itself a clinical benefit and basis for traditional approval, if there is a basis for concluding that the therapeutic effect is reasonably likely to predict the ultimate clinical benefit of a product.

The Accelerated Approval pathway is most often used in settings in which the course of a disease is long and an extended period of time is required to measure the intended clinical benefit of a product, even if the effect on the surrogate or intermediate clinical endpoint occurs rapidly. Thus, Accelerated Approval has been used extensively in the development and approval of products for treatment of a variety of cancers in which the goal of therapy is generally to improve survival or decrease morbidity and the duration of the typical disease course requires lengthy and sometimes large trials to demonstrate a clinical or survival benefit. Thus, the benefit of Accelerated Approval derives from the potential to receive approval based on surrogate endpoints sooner than possible for trials with clinical or survival endpoints, rather than deriving from any explicit shortening of the FDA approval timeline, as is the case with Priority Review.

The Accelerated Approval pathway is usually contingent on a sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the product’s clinical benefit. The FDA might also require to already set-up and initiate such confirmatory studies prior to BLA submission. As a result, a product candidate licensed on this basis is subject to rigorous post-marketing compliance requirements, including the completion of Phase 4 or post-approval clinical trials to confirm the effect on the clinical endpoint. Failure to conduct required post-approval studies, or confirm a clinical benefit during post-marketing studies, would allow the FDA to initiate expedited proceedings to withdraw approval of the product. All promotional materials for product candidates licensed under accelerated regulations are subject to prior review by the FDA.

The FDA’s Decision on a BLA

On the basis of the FDA’s evaluation of the application and accompanying information, including the results of the inspection of the manufacturing facilities, the FDA 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 generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing or information in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. If those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the BLA, the FDA will issue an approval letter. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in two or six months depending on the type of information included. Even with submission of this additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for licensing.

If the FDA licenses a new product, it may limit the licensed indications for use of the product. The agency may also require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution restrictions or other risk management mechanisms, including REMS, to help ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh the potential risks. REMS can include medication guides, communication plans for healthcare professionals, and elements to assure safe use (“ETASU”). ETASU can include, but are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring and the use of patient registries. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-market studies or surveillance programs. After licensing, many types of changes to the licensed product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

Post-Licensing Regulation

If regulatory licensing for marketing of a product or new indication for an existing product is obtained, the sponsor will be required to comply with all regular post-licensing regulatory requirements as well as any post-licensing requirements that the FDA may have imposed as part of the licensing process. The sponsor will be required to report, among other things, certain adverse reactions and manufacturing problems to the FDA, provide updated safety and potency or efficacy information and comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotional labeling requirements. Manufacturers and certain of their subcontractors are

95

required to register their facilities with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with ongoing regulatory requirements, including cGMP regulations, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon manufacturers. Changes to the manufacturing processes are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval before being implemented. Accordingly, the sponsor and its third-party manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the areas of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP regulations and other regulatory requirements.

As part of the manufacturing process, the manufacturer is required to perform certain tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. After a BLA is approved for a biological product, the product may also be subject to official lot release, meaning that the manufacturer is required to perform certain tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. If the product is subject to official release, the manufacturer must submit samples of each lot, together with a release protocol showing a summary of the history of manufacture of the lot and the results of all of the manufacturer’s tests performed on the lot, to the FDA. The FDA may in addition perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of some products before releasing the lots for distribution. In addition, the FDA conducts laboratory research related to the regulatory standards on the safety, purity, potency, and effectiveness of biological products.

Once a license is granted, the FDA may suspend or revoke the license if compliance with regulatory requirements is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical trials to assess safety risks; or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

The FDA strictly regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of prescription drug products placed on the market. This regulation includes, among other things, standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, communications regarding unapproved uses, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the Internet and social media. After licensing, a drug product generally may not be promoted for uses that are not licensed by the FDA, as reflected in the product’s prescribing information. In the United States, healthcare professionals are generally permitted to prescribe drugs for such uses not described in the drug’s labeling, known as off-label uses, because the FDA does not regulate the practice of medicine. However, FDA regulations impose rigorous restrictions on manufacturers’ communications, prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. It may be permissible, under very specific, narrow conditions, for a manufacturer to engage in nonpromotional, non-misleading communication regarding off-label information, such as distributing scientific or medical journal information.

If a company is found to have promoted off-label uses, it may become subject to adverse public relations and administrative and judicial enforcement by the FDA, the Department of Justice, or the Office of the Inspector General of the HHS, as well as state authorities. This could subject a company to a range of penalties that could have a significant commercial impact, including civil and criminal fines and agreements that materially restrict the

96

manner in which a company promotes or distributes drug products. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion and has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed.

In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (“PDMA”) and its implementing regulations as well as the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (“DSCA”), which regulate the distribution and tracing of prescription drug samples at the federal level and set minimum standards for the regulation of distributors by the states. The PDMA, its implementing regulations and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples, and the DSCA imposes requirements to ensure accountability in distribution and to identify and remove counterfeit and other illegitimate products from the market.

Pediatric Studies and Exclusivity

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, a BLA or supplement thereto for a biological product with a new active ingredient, indication, dosage form, dosing regimen or route of administration must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations, and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. Sponsors must also submit pediatric study plans prior to the assessment data. Those plans must contain an outline of the proposed pediatric study or studies the applicant plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, any deferral or waiver requests and other information required by regulation. The applicant, the FDA, and the FDA’s internal review committee must then review the information submitted, consult with each other and agree upon a final plan. The FDA or the applicant may request an amendment to the plan at any time.

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

The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after licensing of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements. Generally, the pediatric data requirements do not apply to products with orphan designation.

The FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017 established new requirements to govern certain molecularly targeted cancer indications. Any company that submits a BLA three years after the date of enactment of that statute must submit pediatric assessments with the BLA if the biologic is intended for the treatment of an adult cancer and is directed at a molecular target that FDA determines to be substantially relevant to the growth or progression of a pediatric cancer. The investigation must be designed to yield clinically meaningful pediatric study data regarding the dosing, safety and preliminary potency to inform pediatric labeling for the product. Deferrals and waivers as described above are also available. Exemptions for pediatric assessments usually do not apply for molecularly targeted cancer indications.

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent marketing exclusivity in the United States and, if granted, provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing regulatory exclusivity, including the non-patent and orphan exclusivity. This six-month exclusivity may be granted if a BLA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond to a written request from the FDA for such data. The data do not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied. If reports of requested pediatric studies are submitted to and accepted by the FDA within the statutory time limits, whatever statutory or regulatory periods of exclusivity or patent protection cover the product are extended by six months. This is not a patent term extension, but it effectively extends the regulatory period during which the FDA cannot license another application.

97

Orphan Drug Designations and Exclusivity

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a biological product as an “orphan drug” if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition, generally meaning that it affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or more in cases in which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making a product available in the United States for treatment of disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product. A company must seek orphan drug designation before submitting a BLA for the candidate product. If the request is granted, the FDA will disclose the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential use. Orphan drug designation does not shorten the PDUFA goal dates for the regulatory review and licensing process, although it does convey certain advantages such as tax benefits and exemption from the PDUFA application fee.

If a product with orphan designation receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation or for a select indication or use within the rare disease or condition for which it was designated, the product generally will receive orphan drug exclusivity. Orphan drug exclusivity means that the FDA may not license another sponsor’s marketing application for the same drug for the same condition for seven years, except in certain limited circumstances. Orphan exclusivity does not block the licensing of a different product for the same rare disease or condition, nor does it block the licensing of the same product for different conditions. If a biologic designated as an orphan drug ultimately receives marketing licensing for an indication broader than what was designated in its orphan drug application, it may not be entitled to exclusivity.

Orphan drug exclusivity will not bar licensing of another product under certain circumstances, including if a subsequent product with the same biologic for the same condition is shown to be clinically superior to the licensed product on the basis of greater effectiveness, safety in a substantial portion of the target populations, or providing a major contribution to patient care, or if the company with orphan drug exclusivity is not able to meet market demand.

Biosimilars and Regulatory Exclusivity

The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which was signed into law on March 23, 2010, included a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”). The BPCIA established a regulatory scheme authorizing the FDA to license biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars. The FDA has licensed several biosimilar products for use in the United States. The FDA has issued several guidance documents outlining an approach to review and licensing of biosimilars.

Under the BPCIA, a manufacturer may apply for licensure of a biological product that is “biosimilar to” or “interchangeable with” a previously licensed biological product or “reference product.” In order for the FDA to license a biosimilar product, it must find, among other things, that the product is “highly similar” to the reference product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components and that there are no clinically meaningful differences between the reference product and proposed biosimilar product in terms of safety, purity, and potency. For the FDA to license a biosimilar product as interchangeable with a reference product, the agency must find that the biosimilar product can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product, and, for products administered multiple times, that the biologic and the reference biologic may be switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished potency relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic.

Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable biological product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date of licensing of the reference product. The FDA may not license a biosimilar or interchangeable biological product until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was licensed. Even if a product is considered to be a reference product eligible for exclusivity, another company could market a competing version of that product if the FDA licenses a full BLA for such product containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity, and potency of their product. The BPCIA also created certain exclusivity periods

98

for biosimilars licensed as interchangeable products. At this juncture, it is unclear whether products deemed “interchangeable” by the FDA will, in fact, be readily substituted by pharmacies, which are governed by state pharmacy law.

Patent Term Restoration and Extension

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, including the United States, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest date of filing of a non-provisional patent application. In the United States, a patent claiming a new FDA-approved biological product may be eligible for a limited patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act, which permits a patent restoration of up to five years for patent term lost during product development and FDA regulatory review. The restoration period granted on a patent covering a product is typically one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of a marketing application (such as a BLA), plus the time between the submission date of a marketing application and the ultimate licensing date. Patent term restoration cannot be used to extend the remaining term of a patent past a total of 14 years from the product’s licensing date. Only one patent applicable to a licensed product is eligible for the extension, only those claims covering the approved product, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent in question and within 60 days after approval of the relevant marketing application. A patent that covers multiple products for which licensing is sought can only be extended in connection with one of the licenses. The USPTO reviews and licenses the application for any patent term extension or restoration in consultation with the FDA. Similar provisions are available in Europe and other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. In the future, if and when our products receive FDA approval, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on patents covering those products. We plan to seek patent term extensions to any of our issued patents in any jurisdiction where these are available, however there is no guarantee that the applicable authorities, including the FDA in the United States, will agree with our assessment of whether such extensions should be granted, and if granted, the length of such extensions.

Regulation of Companion Diagnostics

The success of certain of our product candidates may depend, in part, on the development and commercialization of a companion diagnostic. Companion diagnostics identify patients who are most likely to benefit from a particular therapeutic product; identify patients likely to be at increased risk for serious side effects as a result of treatment with a particular therapeutic product; or monitor response to treatment with a particular therapeutic product for the purpose of adjusting treatment to achieve improved safety or effectiveness. Companion diagnostics are regulated as medical devices by the FDA. In the United States, the FDCA and its implementing regulations, and other federal and state statutes and regulations govern, among other things, medical device design and development, preclinical and clinical testing, premarket clearance or approval, registration and listing, manufacturing, labeling, storage, advertising and promotion, sales and distribution, export and import, and post-market surveillance. Unless an exemption or FDA exercise of enforcement discretion applies, diagnostic tests generally require marketing clearance or approval from the FDA prior to commercialization. The two primary types of FDA marketing authorization applicable to a medical device are premarket notification, also called 510(k) clearance, and approval of a premarket approval (“PMA”).

To obtain 510(k) clearance for a medical device, or for certain modifications to devices that have received 510(k) clearance, a manufacturer must submit a premarket notification demonstrating that the proposed device is substantially equivalent to a previously cleared 510(k) device or to a preamendment device that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or a predicate device, for which the FDA has not yet called for the submission of a PMA. In making a determination that the device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device, the FDA compares the proposed device to the predicate device or predicate devices and assesses whether the subject device is comparable to the predicate device or predicate devices with respect to intended use,

99

technology, design and other features which could affect safety and effectiveness. If the FDA determines that the subject device is substantially equivalent to the predicate device or predicate devices, the subject device may be cleared for marketing.

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

On July 31, 2014, the FDA issued a final guidance document addressing the development and approval process for “In Vitro Companion Diagnostic Devices.” According to the guidance document, for novel therapeutic products that depend on the use of a diagnostic test and where the diagnostic device could be essential for the safe and effective use of the corresponding therapeutic product, the premarket application for the companion diagnostic device should be developed and approved or cleared contemporaneously with the therapeutic, although the FDA recognizes that there may be cases when contemporaneous development may not be possible. However, in cases where a drug cannot be used safely or effectively without the companion diagnostic, the FDA’s guidance indicates it will generally not approve the drug without the approval or clearance of the diagnostic device. The FDA also issued a draft guidance in July 2016 setting forth the principles for co-development of an in vitro companion diagnostic device with a therapeutic product. The draft guidance describes principles to guide the development and contemporaneous marketing authorization for the therapeutic product and its corresponding in vitro companion diagnostic.

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

Healthcare Law and Regulation

See “Item 3. Key Information—D. Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Business and Industry.”

Review and Approval of Medicinal Products in the EU

In order to market any product outside of the United States, a company must also comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries and jurisdictions regarding quality, safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of products. Whether or not it obtains FDA licensing for a product, an applicant will need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities before it can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries or jurisdictions. Specifically, the process governing approval of medicinal products in the EU generally follows similar lines as in the United States. It entails satisfactory completion of preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of the

100

product for each proposed indication. It also requires the submission to the relevant competent authorities of a MAA, and granting of a marketing authorization by these authorities before the product can be marketed and sold in the EU.

Clinical Trial Approval in the EU

The Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC, the Directive 2005/28/EC on GCP and the related national implementing provisions of the individual EU Member States govern the system for the approval of clinical trials in the EU. Under this system, an applicant must obtain prior approval from the competent national authority of the EU Member States in which the clinical trial is to be conducted. Furthermore, the applicant may only start a clinical trial at a specific study site after the lead ethics committee has issued a favorable opinion. The clinical trial application must be accompanied by, among other documents, an investigational medicinal product dossier (the Common Technical Document) with supporting information prescribed by Directive 2001/20/EC, Directive 2005/28/EC, where relevant the implementing national provisions of the individual EU Member States and further detailed in applicable guidance documents.

In April 2014, the EU adopted a new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014, which is set to replace the current Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. The new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 applies since January 31, 2022 and overhauls the current system of approvals for clinical studies in the EU. Specifically, the new regulation, which is directly applicable in all member states, aims at simplifying and streamlining the approval of clinical studies in the EU. For instance, the new Clinical Trials Regulation provides for a streamlined application procedure via a single point and strictly defined deadlines for the assessment of clinical study applications.

PRIME Designation in the EU

In March 2016, the EMA launched an initiative to facilitate development of product candidates in indications, often rare, for which few or no therapies currently exist. The PRIority MEdicines (“PRIME”) scheme is intended to encourage drug development in areas of unmet medical need and provides accelerated assessment of products representing substantial innovation reviewed under the centralized procedure. Products from small and medium-sized enterprises may qualify for earlier entry into the PRIME scheme than products from larger companies. Many benefits accrue to sponsors of product candidates with PRIME designation, including but not limited to, early and proactive regulatory dialogue with the EMA, frequent discussions on clinical trial designs and other development program elements, and accelerated marketing authorization application assessment once a dossier has been submitted. Importantly, a dedicated agency contact and a rapporteur from the Committee for Human Medicinal Products (“CHMP”) or Committee for Advanced Therapies are appointed early in the PRIME scheme facilitating increased understanding of the product at EMA’s Committee level. A kick-off meeting initiates these relationships and includes a team of multidisciplinary experts at the EMA to provide guidance on the overall development and regulatory strategies.

Marketing Authorization in the EU

To obtain a marketing authorization for a product under EU regulatory systems, an applicant must submit an MAA, either under a centralized procedure administered by the EMA or one of the procedures administered by competent authorities in EU Member States (decentralized procedure, national procedure, or mutual recognition procedure). A marketing authorization may be granted only to an applicant established in the EU. Regulation (EC) No. 1901/2006 provides that prior to obtaining a marketing authorization in the EU, applicants must demonstrate compliance with all measures included in an EMA-approved Pediatric Investigation Plan (“PIP”) covering all subsets of the pediatric population, unless the EMA has granted a product-specific waiver, class waiver, or a deferral for one or more of the measures included in the PIP.

101

The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization by the European Commission that is valid across the European Economic Area. Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004, the centralized procedure is compulsory for specific products, including for medicines produced by certain biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, ATMPs and products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases, including products for the treatment of cancer. For products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of other diseases and products that are highly innovative or for which a centralized process is in the interest of patients, the centralized procedure may be optional. The centralized procedure may at the request of the applicant also be used in certain other cases. We anticipate that the centralized procedure will be mandatory for the product candidates we are developing.

Under the centralized procedure, the CHMP is also responsible for several post-authorization and maintenance activities, such as the assessment of modifications or extensions to an existing marketing authorization. Under the centralized procedure in the EU, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA is 210 days, excluding clock stops when additional information or written or oral explanation is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions of the CHMP. Accelerated evaluation may be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases and under PRIME designation, when a medicinal product is of major interest from the point of view of public health and, in particular, from the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation. If the CHMP accepts such a request, the time limit of 210 days will be reduced to 150 days, but it is possible that the CHMP may revert to the standard time limit for the centralized procedure if it determines that it is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment. At the end of this period, the CHMP provides a scientific opinion on whether or not a marketing authorization should be granted in relation to a medicinal product. Within 15 calendar days of receipt of a final opinion from the CHMP, the European Commission must prepare a draft decision concerning an application for marketing authorization. This draft decision must take the opinion and any relevant provisions of EU law into account. Before arriving at a final decision on an application for centralized authorization of a medicinal product the European Commission must consult the Standing Committee on Medicinal Products for Human Use. The Standing Committee is composed of representatives of the EU Member States and chaired by a non-voting European Commission representative. The European Parliament also has a related “droit de regard.” The European Parliament’s role is to ensure that the European Commission has not exceeded its powers in deciding to grant or refuse to grant a marketing authorization.

The European Commission may grant a so-called “marketing authorization under exceptional circumstances.” Such authorization is intended for products for which the applicant can demonstrate that it is unable to provide comprehensive data on the efficacy and safety under normal conditions of use, because the indications for which the product in question is intended are encountered so rarely that the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to provide comprehensive evidence, or in the present state of scientific knowledge, comprehensive information cannot be provided, or it would be contrary to generally accepted principles of medical ethics to collect such information. Consequently, marketing authorization under exceptional circumstances may be granted subject to certain specific obligations, which may include the following:

A marketing authorization under exceptional circumstances is subject to annual review to reassess the risk-benefit balance in an annual reassessment procedure. Continuation of the authorization is linked to the annual reassessment and a negative assessment could potentially result in the marketing authorization being suspended

102

or revoked. The renewal of a marketing authorization of a medicinal product under exceptional circumstances, however, follows the same rules as a “normal” marketing authorization. Thus, a marketing authorization under exceptional circumstances is granted for an initial five years, after which the authorization will become valid indefinitely, unless the EMA decides that safety grounds merit one additional five-year renewal.

The European Commission may also grant a so-called “conditional marketing authorization” prior to obtaining the comprehensive clinical data required for an application for a full marketing authorization. Such conditional marketing authorizations may be granted for product candidates (including medicines designated as orphan medicinal products), if (i) the risk-benefit balance of the product candidate is positive, (ii) it is likely that the applicant will be in a position to provide the required comprehensive clinical trial data, (iii) the product fulfills an unmet medical need and (iv) the benefit to public health of the immediate availability on the market of the medicinal product concerned outweighs the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required. A conditional marketing authorization may contain specific obligations to be fulfilled by the marketing authorization holder, including obligations with respect to the completion of ongoing or new studies, and with respect to the collection of pharmacovigilance data. Conditional marketing authorizations are valid for one year, and may be renewed annually, if the risk-benefit balance remains positive, and after an assessment of the need for additional or modified conditions and/or specific obligations. The timelines for the centralized procedure described above also apply with respect to the review by the CHMP of applications for a conditional marketing authorization.

The EU medicines rules expressly permit the EU Member States to adopt national legislation prohibiting or restricting the sale, supply or use of any medicinal product containing, consisting of or derived from a specific type of human or animal cell, such as embryonic stem cells. While the product candidates we have in development do not make use of embryonic stem cells, it is possible that the national laws in certain EU Member States may prohibit or restrict us from commercializing our product candidates, even if they have been granted an EU marketing authorization.

Regulatory Data Protection in the EU

In the EU, innovative medicinal products approved on the basis of a complete independent data package qualify for eight years of data exclusivity upon marketing authorization and an additional two years of market exclusivity pursuant to Directive 2001/83/EC. Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004 repeats the entitlement for medicinal products authorized in accordance with the centralized authorization procedure. Data exclusivity prevents applicants for authorization of generics of these innovative products from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic (abridged) application for a period of eight years. During the additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic marketing authorization application can be submitted and authorized, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic medicinal product can be placed on the EU market until the expiration of the market exclusivity. The overall ten-year period will be extended to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. Even if a compound is considered to be a new chemical entity so that the innovator gains the prescribed period of data exclusivity, another company may market another version of the product if such company obtained marketing authorization based on an MAA with a complete independent data package of pharmaceutical tests, non-clinical tests and clinical trials.

Periods of Authorization and Renewals

A marketing authorization has an initial validity for five years in principle. The marketing authorization may be renewed after five years on the basis of a reevaluation of the risk-benefit balance by the EMA or by the competent authority of the EU Member State. To this end, the marketing authorization holder must provide the EMA or the competent authority with a consolidated version of the file in respect of quality, safety, and efficacy, including all variations introduced since the marketing authorization was granted, at least six months before the marketing authorization ceases to be valid.

103

The European Commission or the competent authorities of the EU Member States may decide, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one further five-year period of marketing authorization. Once subsequently definitively renewed, the marketing authorization shall be valid for an unlimited period. Any authorization which is not followed by the actual placing of the medicinal product on the EU market (in case of centralized procedure) or on the market of the authorizing EU Member State within three years after authorization ceases to be valid (the so-called sunset clause).

Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity

Regulation (EC) No. 141/2000, as implemented by Regulation (EC) No. 847/2000 provides that a drug can be designated as an orphan drug by the European Commission if its sponsor can establish: that the product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of (1) a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than five in ten thousand persons in the EU when the application is made, or (2) a life-threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition in the EU and that without incentives it is unlikely that the marketing of the drug in the EU would generate sufficient return to justify the necessary investment. For either of these conditions, the applicant must demonstrate that there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of the condition in question that has been authorized in the EU or, if such method exists, the drug will be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition.

Once authorized, orphan medicinal products are entitled to 10 years of market exclusivity in all EU Member States and, in addition, a range of other benefits during the development and regulatory review process including scientific assistance for study protocols, authorization through the centralized marketing authorization procedure covering all member countries and a reduction or elimination of registration and marketing authorization fees. However, marketing authorization may be granted to a similar medicinal product with the same orphan indication during the 10-year period with the consent of the marketing authorization holder for the original orphan medicinal product or if the manufacturer of the original orphan medicinal product is unable to supply sufficient quantities. Marketing authorization may also be granted to a similar medicinal product with the same orphan indication if this product is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior to the original orphan medicinal product. The period of market exclusivity may, in addition, be reduced to six years if it can be demonstrated on the basis of available evidence that the original orphan medicinal product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity.

Regulatory Requirements After a Marketing Authorization Has Been Obtained

In case an authorization for a medicinal product in the EU is obtained, the holder of the marketing authorization is required to comply with a range of requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of medicinal products. These include:

104

C. Organizational Structure

As of December 31, 2022, we had two subsidiaries. The following table set out for each of our principal subsidiaries, the countries of incorporation, and the percentage ownership and voting interest held by us (directly or indirectly through subsidiaries).

D. Property, Plant and Equipment

Immatics OpCo has three locations in Germany:

Immatics US has two locations, an administrative office, which is a direct lease, and the research and laboratory facility, which is subleased from MD Anderson:

T cell products are manufactured at the leased UTHealth Evelyn H. Griffin Stem Cell Therapeutics Research Laboratory in an 1,850 square foot state-of-the-art cGMP facility exclusively used by us in Houston, Texas.

We believe that our office, research and laboratory facilities are sufficient to meet our current needs. To scale our cell therapies for pivotal trials and initial commercial manufacturing, we have started the construction of a state-of-the-art 100,000 square foot research and commercial GMP manufacturing facility in the metropolitan area of Houston, Texas. The facility is intended to manufacture our IMA203 products as well as other future autologous and allogeneic cell therapy product candidates for registration-directed clinical trials as well as for commercial supply. The facility is designed for flexibility and can be expanded in a modular fashion. The GMP manufacturing facility is expected to be operational in 2024. The facility will replace the current locations used by Immatics US.

We are not aware of any environmental issues or other constraints that would materially impact the intended use of our facilities.

105

None.

You should read the following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations together with our consolidated financial statements, including the notes thereto, included in this Annual Report. Our consolidated financial statements are presented in euros and have been prepared in accordance with IFRS as issued by the IASB. The following discussion includes forward-looking statements that involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions. Our actual results may differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of many factors, including but not limited to those described under “Item 3. Key Information - D. Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report.

For a discussion of our consolidated statements of operations for the years ended December 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020 and our cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2020, see the section “Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects” in our Annual Report on Form 20-F (File No. 001-39363) filed with the SEC on March 23, 2022.

A. Operating Results

Overview

We are a clinical-stage biotechnology company dedicated to the development of T cell receptor (“TCR”)-based immunotherapies for the treatment of cancer. Our purpose is to deliver a meaningful impact on the lives of cancer patients by developing novel TCR-based immunotherapies that are designed to achieve effect beyond an incremental clinical benefit. Our focus is the development of product candidates for the treatment of patients with solid tumors, who are inadequately served by existing treatment modalities. We strive to become an industry leading, fully integrated global biopharmaceutical company engaged in developing, manufacturing and commercializing TCR immunotherapies for the benefit of cancer patients, our employees, our shareholders and our partners.

By utilizing TCR-based therapeutics, we are able to direct T cells to intracellular cancer targets that are not accessible through classical antibody-based or CAR-T therapies. We believe that by identifying what we call true cancer targets and the right TCRs, we are well positioned to transform current solid tumor treatment paradigms by delivering cellular and bispecific product candidates that have the potential to substantially improve the lives of cancer patients.

We are developing our targeted immunotherapy product candidates through two distinct treatment modalities: TCR-engineered autologous (“ACTengine”) or allogeneic (“ACTallo”) Adoptive Cell Therapies (“ACT”) and antibody-like Bispecifics, also called T cell Engaging Receptors (“TCER”). Each modality is designed with distinct attributes and mechanisms of action to produce the desired therapeutic effect for a variety of cancer patient populations with different unmet medical needs. Our current pipeline shown below comprises several proprietary TCR-based product candidates in clinical and preclinical development. In addition to our proprietary pipeline, we are collaborating with industry-leading partners, including Bristol Myers Squibb (“BMS”), Editas Medicine and Genmab, to develop multiple additional therapeutic programs covering ACT and Bispecifics.

Since our inception, we have focused on developing our technologies and executing our preclinical and clinical research programs with the aim to deliver the power of T cells to cancer patients. We do not have any products approved for sale. We have funded our operations primarily through equity financing and through upfront payments from our collaboration partners.

106

We have assembled a team of 380 and 347 FTEs as of December 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021, respectively.

Through December 31, 2022 we have raised approximately €823.7 million in total through licensing payments from our collaborators and through private and public placements of securities. We are holding Cash and cash equivalents and Other financial assets of €362.2 million as of December 31, 2022. We believe that we have sufficient capital resources to fund our operations through at least the next 12 months.

Since our inception, we have incurred net losses, which have been significant in recent years. Despite the net income that we generated within the year ended December 31, 2022, we expect to continue to incur significant expenses and increasing net losses for the foreseeable future as we continue our research and development efforts and seek to obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize our product candidates. Our future profitability will be dependent upon the successful development, approval and commercialization of our product candidates and achieving a level of revenues adequate to support our cost structure. We may never achieve profitability and, unless and until we do, we will continue to need to raise additional capital. Our net losses may fluctuate significantly from year to year.

Recent Developments

Business Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic

In December 2019, a novel strain of coronavirus (“COVID-19”) emerged. In response, many countries and businesses instituted travel restrictions, quarantines, and office closures. With COVID-19 vaccines becoming more broadly available, most of our employees have returned to onsite work. However, there can be no assurance that future developments regarding the spread of COVID-19 will not result in a negative impact of the Group’s ability to conduct clinical trials, including potential delays and restrictions on the Group’s ability to recruit and retain patients and the availability of principal investigators and healthcare employees. We will continue to closely monitor the effects of the pandemic.

Russian-Ukraine Conflict and macroeconomic environment

The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has resulted, and is expected to further result, in significant disruption, instability and volatility in global markets, as well as higher energy and other commodity prices. Since the Company is not currently conducting any business or receiving any material services from vendors located in Russia or Ukraine, it does not expect that the ongoing war will have a direct impact on its operations in the near term. However, the Company may be affected by price increases or certain fiscal policy changes in Germany, such as new tax legislation, economic sanctions and comparable measures.

Components of Operating Results

Revenue from Collaboration Agreements

To date, we have not generated any revenue from the sale of pharmaceutical products. Our revenue has been solely derived from our collaboration agreements, such as with BMS and Genmab.

Our revenue from collaboration agreements consists of upfront payments as well as reimbursement of research and development expenses. Upfront payments allocated to the obligation to perform research and development services are initially recorded on our statement of financial position as deferred revenue and are subsequently recognized as revenue on a cost-to-cost measurement basis, in accordance with our accounting policy as described further under “E. Critical Accounting Estimates.”

As part of the collaboration arrangements, we grant exclusive licensing rights for the development and commercialization of future product candidates, developed for specified targets defined in the respective

107

collaboration agreement. We carry out our research activities using our proprietary technology and know-how, participate in joint steering committees, and prepare data packages. In three of our four current collaboration agreements, these commitments represent one combined performance obligation, because the research activities are mutually dependent and the collaborator is unable to derive significant benefit from our access to these targets without our research activities, which are highly specialized and cannot be performed by other organizations. For the collaboration signed with BMS in December 2021, we identified two separate performance obligations, because the license is a distinct obligation and the clinical trial services will not result in a modification of the license.

The collaboration agreements resulted in €399.2 million of upfront cash payments through December 31, 2022. As part of the agreements, we contribute our XPRESIDENT and other technologies, as well as commit to participating in joint research activities. In addition, we agree to license certain target rights and the potential product candidates developed under the collaboration.

Under each of our collaboration agreements, we are entitled to receive payments for certain development and commercial milestone events, in addition to royalty payments upon successful commercialization of a product. The uncertainty of achieving these milestones significantly impacts on our ability to generate revenue.

Our ability to generate revenue from sales of pharmaceutical products and to become profitable depends on the successful commercialization of product candidates by us and/or by our collaboration partners. In the foreseeable future, we do not expect revenue from product sales. To the extent that existing or potential future collaborations generate revenue, our revenue may vary due to many uncertainties in the development of our product candidates and other factors.

Research and Development Expenses

Research and development expenses consist primarily of personnel-related costs (including share-based compensation) for the various research and development departments, intellectual property (“IP”) expenses, facility-related costs and amortization as well as direct expenses for clinical and preclinical programs.

Our core business is focused on the following initiatives with the goal of providing novel TCR-based immunotherapies to cancer patients:

Research expenses are defined as costs incurred for current or planned investigations undertaken with the prospect of gaining new scientific or technical knowledge and understanding. All research and development costs are expensed as incurred due to scientific uncertainty.

108

We expect our research and development expenses to increase substantially in the future as we advance existing and future proprietary product candidates into and through clinical studies and pursue regulatory approval. The process of conducting the necessary clinical studies to obtain regulatory approval is costly and time-consuming. We expect to increase our headcount to support our continued research activities and to advance the development of our product candidates. Clinical studies generally become larger and more costly to conduct as they advance into later stages and, in the future, we will be required to make estimates for expense accruals related to clinical study expenses. At this time, we cannot reasonably estimate or know the nature, timing and estimated costs of the efforts that will be necessary to complete the development of any product candidates that we develop from our programs. Our research and development programs are at an early stage. We must demonstrate our products’ safety and efficacy through extensive clinical testing. We may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, the testing process that could delay or prevent commercialization of our products, including but not limited to the following:

Clinical testing is very expensive, can take many years, and the outcome is uncertain. It could take several years before we learn the results from any clinical trial using ACT or TCR Bispecifics. The data collected from our clinical trials may not be sufficient to support approval by the FDA, the EMA or comparable regulatory authorities of our ACT or TCR Bispecific product candidates for the treatment of solid tumors. The clinical trials for our products under development may not be completed on schedule and the FDA, EMA or regulatory authorities in other countries may not ultimately approve any of our product candidates for commercial sale. If we fail to adequately demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of any product candidate under development, we may not receive regulatory approval for those product candidates, which would prevent us from generating revenues or achieving profitability.

General and Administrative Expenses

General and administrative expenses consist primarily of personnel-related costs (including share-based compensation) for finance, legal, human resources, business development and other administrative and operational functions, professional fees, accounting and legal services, information technology and facility-related costs. These costs relate to the operation of the business, unrelated to the research and development function or any individual program.

Due to our planned increase in research and development activities as explained above, we also expect that our general and administrative expenses might increase. We might incur increased accounting, audit, legal, regulatory, compliance, director and officer insurance costs. Additionally, if and when a regulatory approval of a product candidate appears likely, we anticipate an increase in payroll and expenses as a result of our preparation for commercial operations.

109

Financial Result

Financial result consists of both financial income and financial expenses. Financial income results primarily from foreign exchange gains. Our financial expenses consist of interest expenses related to lease liabilities, foreign exchange losses and expected credit losses. Additionally, our warrants are classified as Liabilities for warrants. The change in fair value of warrant liabilities consists of the change in fair value of these warrants.

Results of Operations

Comparison of the Years Ended December 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021

The following table summarizes our consolidated statements of operations for each year presented:

Revenue from Collaboration Agreements

The following table summarizes our collaboration revenue for the years indicated:

Our revenue from collaboration agreements increased from €34.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2021 to €172.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2022. The increase in revenue of €138.0 million mainly resulted from the collaborations with BMS. Our revenue from collaboration agreements with BMS includes the revenue related to the right-to-use license for IMA401 amounting to €91.3 million and €34.8 million revenue recognized on a cost-to-cost method. The revenue from collaboration agreements with GSK includes €33.4 million, which resulted from the termination of the collaboration with GSK.

110

We did not achieve any milestones or receive any royalty payments in connection with our collaboration agreements during the presented years.

Research and Development Expenses

The following table summarizes our research and development expenses for the years indicated:

Direct external research and development expenses for our ACT programs increased from €14.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2021 to €17.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2022. This increase mainly resulted from expanded activities in our clinical trials, which was the result in part of a growing number of patients recruited. Direct external research and development expenses for our TCR Bispecifics programs increased from €6.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2021 to €7.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2022. This increase mainly resulted from additional activities in our preclinical studies for IMA402.

Direct external research and development expenses for our other programs such as technology platforms and collaboration agreements increased from €3.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2021 to €5.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2022. This increase mainly resulted from increased activities for our IMA401 collaboration.

We do not allocate indirect research and development expenses by program, as our research and development personnel work across programs. Our IP expenses are incurred for the protection of cancer antigen targets, T cell receptors, antibodies, bispecific molecules, and antigen discovery platforms which are beneficial to the whole research and development group rather than for specific programs. Our programs use common research and development facility and laboratory equipment, and we also incur other costs such as general laboratory material or maintenance expenses that are incurred for commonly used activities within the whole research and development group.

Personnel-related expenses increased from €25.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2021 to €39.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2022. This increase resulted from our headcount growth due to our increased research and development activities including clinical trials. Share-based compensation expenses decreased from €15.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2021 to €12.9 million for the year ended

111

December 31, 2022, mainly due to the fact that certain awards granted as part of the ARYA Merger have fully vested. IP expenses increased from €9.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2021 to €10.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2022 due to our ongoing expansion of our IP portfolio. Facility and depreciation expenses increased from €5.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2021 to €7.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2022. This increase resulted from the acquisition of laboratory equipment and leasehold improvements. Other indirect expenses increased from €6.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2021 to €7.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2022. This increase resulted from our expanded research and development activities.

General and Administrative Expenses

The following table summarizes our general and administrative expenses for the years indicated:

General and administrative expenses increased from €33.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2021 to €36.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2022.

Share-based compensation expenses decreased from €10.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2021 to €9.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2022. Shared-based compensation expenses decrease over time mainly due to the fact that certain awards granted as part of the ARYA Merger have fully vested.

Personnel related general and administrative expenses, excluding share-based compensation, increased from €8.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2021 to €11.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2022. The increase mainly resulted from an increased headcount in our finance, IT, human resources and communications functions.

Professional and consulting fees decreased from €6.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2021 to €6.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2022. The decrease in professional and consulting fees resulted mainly from lower legal and consulting expenses.

Other external expenses increased from €7.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2021 to €9.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2022. The increase in other expenses mainly resulted from increased insurance payments, depreciation and facility expenses.

Change in fair value of warrant liabilities

The fair value of warrants decreased from €3.88 per warrant as of December 31, 2021 to €2.35 per warrant as of December 31, 2022. The result is a decrease in fair value of warrant liabilities of €10.9 million and a corresponding income for the year ended December 31, 2022.

Subsequent to the Business Combination, there were 7,187,500 warrants outstanding, which were classified as financial liabilities through profit and loss. The warrants entitle the holder to purchase one ordinary share at an exercise price of $11.50 per share. The warrants will expire five years after the completion of the Business Combination or earlier upon redemption or liquidation in accordance with their terms.

112

Other Financial Income and Other Financial Expenses

Other financial income increased from €5.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2021 to €9.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2022. The increase mainly resulted from higher interest income and foreign exchange gains.

Other financial expenses increased from €1.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2021 to €8.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2022. The increase mainly resulted from higher foreign exchange losses.

B. Liquidity and Capital Resources

Sources of Liquidity

With the exception of the year ended December 31, 2022, we have incurred losses since inception. We have a positive cash flow from operations for the year ended December 31, 2022 due to upfront payments in connection with the closing of the BMS collaboration agreements. We have negative cash flows from operations for the year ended December 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020. For the year ended December 31, 2022, we had an accumulated deficit of €500.3 million.

We have funded our operations primarily from public offerings and private placements of our ordinary shares, upfront payments from collaborations agreements, and the net proceeds generated from the ARYA Merger and PIPE Financing that closed on July 1, 2020 and our public offering in October 2022.

Cash and cash equivalents increased from €133.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2021 to €148.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2022. We received €212.4 million in connection with the strategic collaboration agreements with BMS and €106.2 million from a public offering of 10,905,000 ordinary shares during the year ended December 31, 2022.

We believe our existing Cash, cash equivalents and Other financial assets will be sufficient to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements through at least the next 12 months. We may consider raising additional capital to pursue strategic investments, to take advantage of financing opportunities or for other reasons. Additionally, in 2021, we established an at-the-market (“ATM”) offering program pursuant to which we may, from time to time, issue and sell shares that have an aggregate offering price of $100 million. During the year ended December 31, 2022, 2.8 million shares were sold under the ATM agreement with SVB Securities LLC, resulting in a gross amount of €20.8 million ($21.3 million).

We plan to utilize the existing Cash, cash equivalents and Other financial assets on hand primarily to fund our operating activities associated with our research and development initiatives to continue or commence clinical trials and seek regulatory approval for our product candidates. We also expect to make capital expenditures in the near term related to the expansion of our laboratory spaces in Tübingen, Germany and our new GMP manufacturing facility in Houston metropolitan area, Texas and expect to continue investing in laboratory and manufacturing equipment and operations to support our anticipated growth. Cash in excess of immediate requirements is invested in accordance with our investment policy with an emphasis on liquidity and capital preservation and consist primarily of cash in banks, short-term deposits and AAA rated bonds.

Our contractual obligations as of December 31, 2022 include lease obligations for lease liabilities of €18.6 million, reflecting our future minimum commitments for our office, manufacturing and laboratory spaces in Tübingen, Munich and Houston, as well as other lease obligations of €4.9 million, reflecting our future minimum commitments for our new office and laboratory spaces in Tübingen and Munich which are not reflected on our balance sheet on which we committed in 2022 and will be effective in the year 2023.