This Annual Report on Form of Magenta Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”) contains or incorporates statements that constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws. Any express or implied statements that do not relate to historical or current facts or matters are forward-looking statements. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may,” “will,” “could,” “should,” “expects,” “intends,” “plans,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “predicts,” “projects,” “seeks,” “endeavor,” “potential,” “continue” or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology. Forward-looking statements appear in a number of places in this Annual Report on Form and include, but are not limited to, statements about:

Although we believe that the expectations reflected in these forward-looking statements are reasonable, these statements relate to our strategy, future operations, future financial position, future revenue, projected costs, prospects, plans, objectives of management and expected market growth, and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results, levels of activity, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, levels of activity, performance or achievements expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. You are urged to carefully review the disclosures we make concerning these risks and other factors that may affect our business and operating results under “Item 1A. Risk Factors” in this Annual Report on Form as well as our other reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). Any public statements or disclosures by us following this Annual Report on that modify or impact any of the forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report on will be deemed to modify or supersede such statements in this Annual Report on Form You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this document. The Company does not intend, and undertakes no obligation, to update any forward-looking information to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this document or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events, unless required by law to do so.

The risk factors detailed in Item 1A entitled “Risk Factors” in this Annual Report on Form are the risks that we believe are material to our investors and a reader should carefully consider them. Those risks are not all of the risks we face and other factors not presently known to us or that we currently believe are immaterial may also affect our business if they occur. The following is a summary of the risk factors detailed in Item 1A:

Stem cell transplant, whether autologous or allogeneic, has broad applicability across disease settings, including blood cancers, gene therapies for genetic diseases and autoimmune diseases. It is the current standard of care for certain blood cancers such as acute myeloid leukemia, or AML, myelodysplastic syndromes, or MDS, multiple myeloma and lymphoma. Hematopoietic stem cell, or HSC, -based gene therapies also rely on the same steps of the stem cell transplant process with an additional step where collected stem cells are gene-corrected or modified to address the underlying disease prior to transplant. Such gene therapy approaches that leverage the stem cell transplant procedure are being investigated by numerous companies in a variety of diseases, including sickle cell disease, beta-thalassemia and lysosomal storage disorders. Autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis and systemic sclerosis may also benefit from resetting the immune system through stem cell transplant.

including personnel time, and the indirect costs associated with the need to block time in the limited number of chairs in transplant centers that are used to collect stem cells. Similarly, gene therapies could benefit from more efficient collection of stem cells which could potentially reduce gene therapy manufacturing timelines and costs. Additionally, there are no approved mobilization options for patients with sickle cell disease and autoimmune diseases, and the use of currently available medicines is associated with significant safety risks including vaso-occlusive events in sickle cell disease patients.

Magenta is developing for stem cell mobilization in a broad range of diseases, for both autologous and allogeneic transplants. is Magenta’s biologic stem cell mobilization product candidate designed to address these time and cost inefficiencies while enabling the rapid, reliable, predictable and safe collection of functional blood stem cells for transplant in a single day. In 2020, we completed a Phase 1 clinical trial in healthy volunteers to evaluate the ability of in combination with plerixafor, to mobilize stem cells. Based on the results of the study, we have advanced the program into three ongoing and planned Phase 2 clinical trials, including an autologous transplant trial in multiple myeloma patients; an allogeneic transplant trial with healthy donor cells collected for transplant in patients with acute myeloid leukemia, myelodysplastic syndromes or acute lymphocytic leukemia, or ALL; and lastly, a planned trial in partnership with bluebird bio, Inc. to mobilize and collect the stem cells of sickle cell disease patients.

In addition to the opportunity to address the challenges in mobilization and collection of stem cells, Magenta also seeks to improve patient conditioning prior to transplant. Conditioning is the process by which patients are treated with chemotherapy prior to transplant to ensure that the bone marrow has sufficient space to receive newly transplanted stem cells. Currently, only approximately 50% of eligible patients receive a stem cell transplant, in part because of the risks and toxicities of the chemotherapeutic agents available today. Magenta’s lead conditioning program, is designed to selectively deplete stem cells and reduce the need for high-dose or high-intensity chemotherapeutic agents in oncology applications and potentially eliminate the use of busulfan in gene therapy applications. Our additional research-stage conditioning programs target stem and/or immune cells and are being designed to eliminate toxic chemotherapy conditioning regimens across multiple disease settings. Our C100 program focuses on addressing opportunities in immune reset for autoimmune diseases. Our C300 program is being designed to provide for lymphodepletion prior to cell therapies such as chimeric antigen receptor T cells, or Our G100 program is being designed to provide prophylaxis of graft-versus-host disease, a common post-transplant complication following allogeneic stem cell transplant.

Magenta is also evaluating two programs with potential in cell therapy. Each is a small molecule used to manufacture a high number of functional stem cells, from either a donor or gene-modified stem cells from a patient. is a cell therapy designed to generate higher cell doses that are well matched to the patient, which has been shown to improve the speed and success of engraftment in stem cell transplant and improve disease outcomes. In June 2020, we announced that we discontinued enrollment in our Phase 2 trial of in inherited metabolic diseases. Enrollment in an investigator-initiated trial in patients with blood cancers has been completed, and we plan to use these data, when available, to inform a decision regarding future program development in blood cancers. Our second cell therapy program, E478, is a small molecule aryl hydrocarbon receptor, or AHR, antagonist whichuses the same mechanism used to manufacture to expand gene-modified HSCs for stem cell-based gene therapy and genome editing.

In an autologous transplant—used for conditions such as multiple myeloma, lymphoma and autoimmune diseases—the patient’s own stem cells are used. In the case of stem cell gene therapy and genome editing, once the cells are collected from the patient, these cells are then modified to either insert a functioning gene into, or correct a defective gene within, the collected stem cells before they are transplanted into the patient via infusion.

We believe we are the only company that is committed to

addressing both mobilization and conditioning opportunities in stem cell transplant and gene therapies. We are focused on creating a comprehensive portfolio of therapies to optimize the blood and immune reset process. Our initial focus is on blood cancers, genetic diseases and autoimmune diseases, and we also plan to address other diseases for which blood and immune reset could represent a curative treatment.

We have assembled a group of experts in the fields of stem cell biology, biotherapeutics and transplant medicine. With this team, we plan to convert recent scientific breakthroughs into a pipeline of product candidates for blood and immune reset therapies.

We are building a fully integrated biotechnology company with capabilities in research, development and commercialization, and we believe the broad and synergistic nature of our portfolio will allow us to address many of the significant limitations of stem cell transplant and transplant-based therapies.

Our commercial planning centers around hospital-based prescribers, and this is consistent across all product candidates in our portfolio. Stem cell transplants are performed in approximately 450 accredited medical centers in the U.S. and Europe, with more than half of the U.S. procedures performed at 20% of transplant centers. We have established relationships with key stakeholders within many of these top transplant centers. We believe the synergies among our programs and the well-defined structure of the current stem cell transplant provider network will allow us to commercialize our therapeutics through a focused, targeted commercial and medical affairs organization.

In addition to the potential to bring meaningful clinical benefit to patients, provides strategic value to Magenta by allowing us to accelerate the of our clinical development infrastructure and footprint and to establish key prescriber relationships that will be important for future commercialization of our products.

National Marrow Donor Program (as successor in interest to Be the Match Biotherapies, LLC), or Be the Match, is a leading patient-focused stem cell transplant organization in the U.S. Because of our shared patient focus, we and Be the Match established a broad, collaboration in 2017. This collaboration positions us as a partner with high-priority access to many services that will continue to enable us to establish relationships across transplant centers and with key transplant physicians. Through our partnership, we access clinical strategy support and clinical development operational support, including a cell supply platform which will enable our commercialization efforts across several programs. We also have access to the Be the Match payer and policy group to inform and support our pricing and reimbursement plans across the portfolio. In June 2020, we announced a clinical collaboration agreement with Be the Match, as an extension of our existing strategic partnership, to evaluate the potential utility of in combination with plerixafor, for mobilizing and collecting HSCs from donors more efficiently and then using them for allogeneic transplants in patients.

We own all product rights across our mobilization and conditioning programs, including and We will evaluate additional collaborations when available to:

We are developing a portfolio of novel product candidates that we believe have the potential to meaningfully improve stem cell transplant for patients with blood cancers, genetic diseases and autoimmune diseases. Additionally, we believe our product candidates have the potential to allow more patients with debilitating or life-threatening diseases to access a transformative blood and immune reset through stem cell transplant with better outcomes and reduced risk of toxicities and mortality. We are developing our product candidates so that they can be used individually or in combination with each other, such that a patient may receive more than one Magenta therapy as part of his or her individual transplant journey. In addition to our first set of clinical product candidates, we are in the process of identifying several other potential candidates from our conditioning research platform.

Initial applications of our research-stage programs include immune reset for autoimmune diseases; lymphodepletion prior to cell therapies such as and prophylaxis of graft-versus-host disease, or GvHD, a post-transplant complication following allogeneic stem cell transplant.

The current standard of care for mobilization in most patients and donors is granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, or which mobilizes stem cells indirectly, requires repeated daily injections and is associated with significant side effects, including bone pain and, in some cases, splenic rupture and death. The regimen requires at least five days of injections of and side effects can be disruptive for both patients having their cells collected for autologous transplants and for healthy volunteers donating their cells for allogeneic transplants.

The current unreliable and inefficient mobilization and collection process can also pose a significant logistical burden on transplant and apheresis centers. When planning for a patient’s transplant, transplanting physicians cannot reliably predict at the outset how long it will take to collect the number of cells required. In addition, each day scheduled for attempted mobilization and collection can cause an accumulation of both the direct costs associated with the repeated use of mobilization agents and other healthcare resources, including personnel time, and the indirect costs associated with the need to block time in the limited number of chairs in transplant centers that are used to collect stem cells. It is difficult to predict whether mobilization with will be successful, especially in heavily treated blood cancer patients. Many patients require multiple collections,

including approximately 40% of blood cancer patients. Additionally, of the biologically unrelated donors identified for patients, approximately half decline to donate, in part due to the lengthy and cumbersome donation process, which reduces the chance for finding a well-matched donor for the patient. Finally, patients with sickle cell disease can have severe side effects with including potentially fatal complications, and therefore, this agent is not used in these patients, leaving few mobilization options.

For patients who are unable to mobilize a sufficient number of functional stem cells with physicians may then be required to with and add another drug, known as plerixafor. Plerixafor is a small molecule CXCR4 antagonist that blocks a pathway that otherwise plays an essential role in attracting and retaining HSCs in the bone marrow. It is approved for use in combination with for patients who fail to achieve sufficient mobilization of stem cells with alone. It can mobilize stem cells as a single agent but not to sufficient levels to be effective as a standalone agent in most disease settings. However, because plerixafor is the only available mobilization option for sickle cell disease patients who, as stated, cannot use due to safety concerns, it is used as a single agent in this specific setting. Because of its poor efficacy as a standalone agent and the high number of stem cells required for a transplant, multiple doses of plerixafor and collections are needed in approximately 75% of sickle cell disease patients.

Magenta is developing as a new first-line standard of care for stem cell mobilization in a broad range of diseases, for both autologous and allogeneic transplants. a CXCR2 agonist, works in combination with plerixafor, a CXCR4 antagonist, to harness the physiological mechanism of stem cell mobilization.

The goal of is to be the preferred first-line mobilization option for all patients and donors through rapid, reliable, predictable and safe mobilization and collection of high numbers of functional stem cells.

In May 2020, we received Orphan Drug Designation from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or the FDA, for for the mobilization of HSCs to the peripheral blood for collection and subsequent transplant.

CXCR2 is a chemokine receptor expressed on the surface of neutrophils. Binding of to the receptor results in neutrophil activation. Published data from Magenta founders and scientists show that a key event for mobilization of stem cells is the release of proteases from activated neutrophils, which together with the actions of the CXCR4 antagonist, plerixafor, results in the rapid release of HSCs from the bone marrow into the blood. Blocking CXCR4 using plerixafor and activating neutrophils with has been shown to produce an effective and synergistic untethering and release of HSCs from bone marrow into the blood, resulting in rapid, reliable, predictable and safe mobilization of HSCs.

We have completed a Phase 1 trial of plus plerixafor in healthy subjects. The trial met all primary and secondary endpoints.

The Phase 1 trial was a dose-finding trial to evaluate safety and activity of and consisted of four parts:

Data from the trial presented at the American Society of Hematology, or ASH, in December 2020 showed that was safe and well tolerated as a single agent and in combination with plerixafor, and that in combination with plerixafor demonstrated rapid, mobilization and collection of sufficient numbers of functional stem cells. was shown to engage CXCR2 on neutrophils to mobilize CD34+ cells into peripheral blood with limited neutrophil activation, which may minimize risk of vaso-occlusive crises in patients with sickle cell disease.

Six subjects who received a single dose of at the 0.03 mg/kg dose level and plerixafor in Part B mobilized a median of 40 CD34+ cells/microliter compared with a median of 26 CD34+ cells/microliter in subjects receiving plerixafor alone. Subjects in Part C demonstrated reliable mobilization of CD34+ cells on day two with peak counts that were comparable to day one mobilization yields, which suggests that dosing and collection is feasible.

dosing and apheresis collection in eight subjects across two dose ranges in Part D yielded a median of four million CD34+ cells/kg. The clinically accepted threshold for a successful transplant is two million cells/kg.

in combination with plerixafor mobilized a greater proportion and number (three- to four-fold higher) of CD34+CD90+CD45RA- cells (a cell type enriched for functional stem cells) compared to subjects mobilized with either or plerixafor alone.

A) CD34+ cell number, (B) CD34+CD90+CD45RA- cell frequency and

(C) CD34+CD90+CD45RA- cell number collected from healthy subjects mobilized with a single dose of in combination with plerixafor (n=eight donors), a regimen of (n=three donors) or a single dose of plerixafor (n=six donors). Flow cytometric data shows that a median of 1.4x10 ) CD34+CD90+CD45RA- cells/kg were collected from mobilized donors, compared to 0.40x10 ) for mobilized subjects (p<0.05) or 0.32x10 ) for plerixafor mobilized subjects (p<0.01). Bars represent median, each symbol represents an individual subject. Statistics were calculated by ANOVA with Tukey test. Plerixafor control data were first presented at the Transplant and Cellular Therapy, or TCT, annual meeting in February 2021.

Cells collected from four subjects dosed in Part D led to up to higher multilineage engraftment in primary and secondary transplants in the immunodeficient NSG mouse model compared to cells mobilized by either or plerixafor alone. These data demonstrate rapid and durable multilineage engraftment of + plerixafor mobilized cells relative to other graft sources.

(A) CD34+ cells collected from healthy subjects mobilized with a single injection of + plerixafor, five daily injections of or a single injection of plerixafor donors) were transplanted into sublethally irradiated (200 cGy) NSG mice at limit dilution (3 cell doses). Engraftment of human CD45+ (hCD45+) cells in peripheral blood was measured at week 16 post-transplant by flow cytometry and SCID-repopulating cell (SRC) number was determined by ELDA in primary (B) and secondary (C) recipients. Data represent mice per cell dose and are expressed as SRC number per 1x10 cells +/- 95% CI.

Cells collected from healthy subjects mobilized with a single dose of in combination with plerixafor in Part D were capable of efficient gene-modification and engraftment in a NSG mouse transplant study. Knockout of microglobulin by CRISPR-Cas9 led to approximately 90% editing of CD34+CD90+CD45RA- cells and these cells engrafted in NSG mice, with maintenance of high levels of editing.

(A) CD34+ cells collected from healthy donors mobilized with a single injection of in combination with plerixafor were gene-modified with CRISPR/Cas9 to knockout microglobulin. (B) Edited cells (electroporated in the presence of guide RNA and Cas9) were compared to mock edited cells (electroporated in the absence of guide RNA and Cas9) and CD34+CD90+CD45RA- cell number and editing rates were measured by flow cytometry (n=2). (C) Mock edited or edited cells were transplanted into sublethally irradiated (200 cGy) NSG mice and engraftment of human CD45+ (hCD45+) cells and editing rates were measured at week 16 post-transplant in the peripheral blood by flow cytometry mice).

+ plerixafor mobilized grafts resulted in significantly less GvHD than (p<0.01) or plerixafor (p<0.001) grafts donors/source) in a xenogeneic mouse model.

. (A) 6x10 peripheral blood mononuclear cells, or PBMCs, collected from healthy

subjects mobilized with a single injection of in combination with plerixafor, five daily injections of or a single injection of plerixafor donors) were transplanted into sublethally irradiated (200 cGy) NSG mice at limit dilution mice/donor). Graft sources were compared to unmobilized whole blood controls. (B) Kaplan-Meier survival curve of transplanted NSG mice. Pooled data from individual donors and mice show significantly enhanced survival after transplant with in combination with plerixafor. Statistics were determined by a test.

data presented at ASH in December 2020 showed that plus plerixafor could be an efficient, single-dose mobilization regimen for HSC gene therapy. when administered with plerixafor to wild-type mice or a mouse model of thalassemia, led to robust HSC mobilization, with no significant elevation of cytokines and significantly less leukocytosis than that observed following a mobilization regimen with plus plerixafor. plus plerixafor mobilized cells were capable of efficient transduction using a helper dependent adenovirus (HDAd5/35++)-based vector platform. After in vivo selection, stable long-term, multilineage engraftment of gene-modified cells was observed in primary and secondary recipients (>90% gene marking). In a mouse disease model for thalassemia, phenotypic disease correction was observed after plus plerixafor mobilization and transduction.

. CD46-transgenic animals were mobilized with + plerixafor (5 days) or + plerixafor (single dose) and then injected one hour later with an integrating HDAd5/35++ mgmt./GFP vector, GFP marking was measured at the various time points after transduction. Arrows indicate timing and dose of the selection agent, OBG/BCNU. By week 12 post-transduction, >90% of PBMCs expressed GFP. No significant differences in gene marking were observed with the different selection agents.

We plan to develop as a first-line therapy for stem cell mobilization in a broad range of diseases, for both autologous and allogeneic transplants. We have announced three ongoing and planned Phase 2 clinical trials to evaluate the potential utility of in combination with plerixafor, for the mobilization and collection of stem cells in multiple autologous and allogeneic transplant settings:

Conditioning for stem cell transplant and gene therapy is currently burdensome and risky for both pediatric and adult patients. The agents used today are and involve high doses of systemic, toxic chemotherapy and/or radiation. Most of these genotoxic chemotherapy agents, including derivatives of mustard gas, were discovered more than 50 years ago and were never intended for stem cell transplant conditioning. The current treatments eradicate the stem cells, immune cells and diseased cells but also indiscriminately damage DNA and kill normal, healthy cells in the body. These conditioning regimens can cause long-term lung injury and liver toxicity, serious infections, organ failure, infertility, secondary cancers and even death. Nearly all transplant patients experience complications as a result of current conditioning treatments, and conditioning toxicity is responsible for up to 35% of mortality following allogeneic transplants.

For the many patients that cannot tolerate such intense and toxic regimens due to advanced age or such as decreased organ function, recent efforts have focused on reducing chemotherapy doses in regimens known as reduced intensity conditioning, or RIC. While significantly better tolerated, these RIC regimens have significantly poorer disease outcomes at five years post-transplant. Over 50% of patients receiving RIC relapse and only approximately 30% of patients are alive without relapse at five years following stem cell transplant. Therefore, physicians and patients must currently choose between either the superior long-term efficacy of MAC or the improved safety and tolerability of RIC.

We are developing a suite of novel ADCs for conditioning, a step in the transplant process that currently relies on the use of systemic chemotherapy agents and radiation. We are seeking to replace these toxic, conditioning agents with targeted ADCs. While ADCs are an established treatment for certain cancers, we believe this is the first time that ADC technology has been harnessed for transplant medicine. These programs have the potential to extend the curative power of blood and immune reset to all of the currently eligible patients, and also to expand the number of patients who are considered eligible. Additional eligible patients would include more patients with autoimmune diseases, such as multiple sclerosis and systemic sclerosis, where the current risk-benefit tradeoff of transplant is not considered favorable for many patients due to the toxicity of the existing conditioning regimens.

Traditional conditioning is performed with total body irradiation and chemotherapy which eliminates all HSCs and nonspecifically damages other organs. Targeted conditioning with an ADC specifically eliminates the disease-causing cells while avoiding systemic side effects.

Our most advanced conditioning product candidate, is designed to specifically remove disease-causing HSCs and genetically mutated cells. targets CD117, also known as which is highly expressed on HSCs and leukemia cells, making it an ideal target for conditioning across broad sets of diseases. This includes certain blood cancers, hemoglobinopathies (sickle cell disease and beta-thalassemia) and inherited metabolic disorders, with potential applicability in both stem cell transplant and gene therapies. We have declared a development candidate, which is an anti-CD117 antibody conjugated to an amanitin payload.

Based on: Nobili et.al., Long RNAs in normal and malignant hematopoiesis. Oncotarget (2016).

Our anti-human CD117 amanitin ADC has been shown in preclinical studies to deplete HSCs and leukemia cells, therefore we hypothesize it will improve conditioning in patients with acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes where stem cell transplant is already the standard of care. We believe that in combination with reduced-intensity conditioning, has the potential to demonstrate clinical outcomes that preserve the safety and tolerability of RIC while achieving the efficacy of MAC. Likewise, gene therapy is a promising approach to treat a variety of diseases, including inherited metabolic disorders, sickle cell disease and beta-thalassemia, but the risks and toxicity associated with current chemotherapy-based conditioning approaches may limit the utility of this approach. Through its targeted approach, has the potential to provide a safe and effective approach to preparing patients for stem cell transplant or gene therapy.

Our experiments have validated the concept of using an ADC targeting CD117 in animal models of conditioning and transplant. We found that a single dose of an experimental anti-murine was able to successfully deplete HSCs in immunocompetent mice and allow successful transplant. We then showed in humanized mice that a single dose of an anti-human CD117 amanitin ADC was able to remove CD34+ HSCs from the bone marrow. In contrast, treatment with an unconjugated CD117 antibody did not have a significant impact on HSCs.

The depletion is on target and payload dependent as the naked antibody (Anti-CD117) has no effect. CD117 amanitin ADC or controls were dosed on day 0. Bone marrow was collected on day 21 and analyzed by flow cytometry. The number of CD34+ cells remaining in the bone marrow of CD117 amanitin ADC or control treated mice 21 days after a single administration is shown. * denotes p value < 0.05 vs PBS group.

We subsequently partnered with the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, to investigate an experimental in a primate transplant study using HSCs modified with a lentiviral vector encoding the beta-globin gene, the gene that causes sickle cell disease and beta-thalassemia. Results from the study were presented by Dr. John Tisdale of the NIH at the ASH annual meeting in December 2019.

The experimental was engineered to have a fast half-life to clear the body quickly, and it enabled transplant of gene-modified HSCs within days of dosing in primates.

The engineered half-life experimental demonstrates rapid clearance (10 hour half-life) in primates with a half-life suitable for transplant (n=3/group). The wild type CD117 antibody half-life is approximately three days. The experimental drops below limit of detection for the assay after 48 hours and modeled pharmacokinetics (gray line) predicts the ADC will be below cytotoxic concentrations after five days.

This study showed, for the first time, that a single dose of an experimental selectively depleted HSCs in primates, while sparing immune cells, which are important for recovery following transplantThe single dose of this experimental in primates enabled successful transplant and engraftment of HSCs modified with a lentiviral vector encoding the beta-globin gene.

CD34+ cells were harvested from two rhesus NHPs and transduced with lentiviral

vector encoding beta-globin. The transduced cells were transplanted into the same animals six days after a single dose of experimental The neutrophil counts before and after transplantation of the transduced cells are shown for animal #1 (magenta line) and animal #2 (teal line). The animals recovered their neutrophils on day eight (animal #1) and day ten (animal #2).

The peripheral granulocyte VCN is stable over time and in the same range as observed with busulfan conditioned animals shown in gray. This indicates the conditioning with experimental is sufficient to enable engraftment of gene modified HSCs.

The experimental CD117 ADC was well tolerated in primates with no evidence of the often severe side effects seen with busulfan conditioning, including veno-occlusive disease, weight loss, diarrhea, mucositis, vomiting, pulmonary fibrosis or seizures. No experimental CD117 blood chemistry changes outside normal range were observed.

We believe these studies validate the use of a for targeted stem cell depletion prior to transplant and support its use as a new conditioning agent for gene therapy and stem cell transplant without toxic chemotherapy or radiation.

In data presented at the ASH annual meeting in December 2020, we showed that an anti-human CD117 amanitin ADC was effective at killing human acute myeloid leukemia cells growing. To extend these data, we also assessed the ability of the CD117 amanitin ADC to reduce tumor burden and result in a survival benefit in mice bearing a human acute myeloid leukemia cell line or patient-derived recurrent/relapsed acute myeloid leukemia that was resistant to multiple lines of therapy, including previous allogeneic transplant. Tumor-bearing mice treated with a single dose of CD117-ADC showed improved survival compared to mice left untreated or those treated with isotype ADC or multiple doses of ARA-C.

We currently intend to pursue the development of (an amanitin-based ADC) for patients with certain blood cancers, such as acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes, and for patients with genetic diseases who are eligible for stem cell gene therapy.

In 2020, we also announced two research and clinical collaborations to evaluate the potential utility of for conditioning of patients prior to stem cell-based gene therapies:

Our second conditioning program, C100, targets both patient HSCs and disease-causing immune cells. For many stem cell transplant applications, it is important to eliminate both immune cells and HSCs in the patient prior to transplant. This is especially important in the allogeneic setting where host immune cells can elicit an immune-mediated rejection of the incoming foreign stem cells. In addition, immune cell depletion is a key feature of the use of autologous stem cell transplant in patients with severe autoimmune disease. In this case, the goal is to eliminate the disease-causing auto-reactive immune cells that perpetuate the underlying autoimmune disease. Lastly, for cancer patients with tumors expressing CD45, there may also be a direct anti-tumor effect providing additional therapeutic benefit. For these reasons, we are developing product candidates that simultaneously target both HSCs and immune cells.

Our lead target for the C100 program is CD45, an important cell surface molecule broadly expressed throughout the hematopoietic and immune systems. We believe has the potential to significantly increase the number of patients eligible to receive a stem cell transplant, particularly those patients with autoimmune diseases and acute leukemias.

Data presented at the Transplant and Cellular Therapy, or TCT, and the European League Against Rheumatism, or EULAR, annual meetings in 2020 showed that a single dose of removed disease-causing reactive T cells, enabled successful blood and immune reset and rebuild of the immune system and was well tolerated in a reliable murine model of autoimmune disease, proteoglycan-induced arthritis. Further, a single dose of significantly reduced disease incidence and delayed disease onset in this model that has successfully provided preclinical proof of concept for many clinically validated therapies.

BALB/c mice (CD45.2) were given three immunizations (study day 0, 21, and 42) with recombinant human core G1 aggrecan (60 g in 2 mg DDA) (). Animals were treated on day 11 post the final immunization (study day 53) and conditioned animals were transplanted with Balb/c CD45.1 congenic bone marrow 48 hours later. Animals treated with a neutralizing monoclonal antibody to murine TNF received 500 g/mouse IP weekly starting on study day 53. Treatment with 2 mg/kg of but not enabled full congenic donor chimerism in peripheral blood () at three weeks post-transplant. Representative paws from control and –treated animals are shown in (). Scores for the treatment groups over time are graphed in ().

Data presented at the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation, or EMBT, and ASH annual meetings in 2020 and at the TCT annual meeting in February 2021 showed that a single dose of is fully myeloablative and enables complete chimerism in a full mismatch allogeneic stem cell transplant model without the need for additional conditioning agents.

C57BL/six mice were conditioned with 5 mg/kg or enables 95% donor chimerism (A) and peripheral donor engraftment is multilineage through week 20. Terminal splenic (E) and thymic (F) chimerism in conditioned mice were similar to TBI. *p<0.05 versus TBI; #p<0.05 versus ANOVA with post hoc Tukey’s multiple comparisons test.

Data presented at the TCT annual meeting in 2020 demonstrated that a single dose administration of a short half-life is well tolerated and is capable of reducing tumor burden by potently targeting leukemia cells in xenograft models. It significantly prolonged the median survival of established cell line and patient derived xenograft models as compared to both untreated controls and a multi-dose regimen of a chemotherapy.

Treatment began when tumor blasts were detected in the periphery mice/group/AML PDX model). Mice were treated with a single intravenous dose of anti-human or vehicle (PBS). chemotherapy was administered intravenously once daily for five consecutive days. (A) Survival of CD45+CD117+ PDX AML mice treated with a single intravenous dose of was significantly increased as compared to PBS or controls (B). significantly delayed tumor burden (expressed as %hCD45) in the peripheral blood of treated mice compared to PBS, and standard of care controls.

We plan to develop for use in patients with autoimmune diseases, such as multiple sclerosis and scleroderma, and patients with leukemias and myelodysplastic syndromes. We have identified a lead antibody and progressed this program into IND enabling studies, which we plan to further advance in 2021.

Our third conditioning program, C300, targets T cells, a type of immune cell. T cell depletion is currently performed with highly toxic, drugs which can lead to immune deficiency, infections and other complications, including secondary autoimmune reactions. We are pursuing targets expressed on the surfaces of T cells with the goal of offering a safer and more optimized targeted conditioning approach through T cell depletion before cell therapy such as for blood cancers, prevention of stem cell rejection prior to allogeneic stem cell transplant or achievement of immune system reset through autologous stem cell transplant in patients with autoimmune diseases.

Despite the use of these powerful immune suppressive agents, most allogeneic transplant patients will experience GvHD. For severe cases, patients are treated with high doses of steroids, immune ablating antibodies or chemotherapy. The use of high-dose immune suppressive agents for GvHD treatment is correlated with an increased risk of opportunistic and viral infections, poor immune function and is a leading cause of death in allogenic transplant patients.

Our G100 product candidate is an ADC designed to selectively eliminate the cells that cause acute GvHD, specifically the alloreactive T cells. This ADC product candidate is intended to be dosed at the time of transplant and eliminate the activated alloreactive T cells. By specifically targeting the alloreactive T cells that arise shortly after transplant, this product candidate has the potential to spare the remainder of the immune system to allow immune recovery and protection from opportunistic infections.

Cell dose and degree of graft matching are independent risk factors impacting risk of mortality in individuals undergoing cord blood transplant for acute leukemia. Low numbers of CD34+ stem cells can result in prolonged periods of cytopenia and higher risk of graft failure. The availability of could reduce the barriers associated with cell dose and poor matching that currently limit the successful use of cord blood in transplant. is currently being evaluated in a Phase 2 study in patients with high-risk blood cancers undergoing stem cell transplant. Enrollment is this study has been completed and patients are currently in a period.

is an investigational, novel, proprietary allogeneic stem cell therapy designed to provide a high dose of stem cells that are well matched to the patient. Larger stem cell doses and better matched transplants are both correlated with more successful transplant outcomes, reduced risk of transplant failure and faster time to engraftment and immune recovery.

Data were presented at the TCT annual meeting in February 2021 from 18 patients transplanted in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial in patients with blood cancers. The trial showed that expansion of CD34+CD90+ cells in results in rapid and sustained hematopoietic recovery, complete engraftment in all subjects, improved matching in adults weighing >59 kg and reduced incidence of GvHD. In addition, neutrophil recovery occurred in 100% of patients at a median of 17 days versus 23 days in recipients of unmodified cord blood. Similarly, platelet recovery was higher (94% vs. 74%) and faster (median 36 days vs. 59 days) for patients receiving versus unmodified cord blood, respectively. Both neutrophil and platelet recovery correlated to dose of CD34+CD90+ cells. With all patients now out beyond day 100, only one patient had acute GvHD and one had chronic GvHD limited to the oral mucosa (off immunosuppression 15 months after transplant).

Previously, was evaluated in patients with rare genetic inherited metabolic disorders. In June 2020, we announced that we would discontinue enrollment in our Phase 2 trial of in patients with inherited metabolic disorders undergoing stem cell transplant. This decision was the result of several factors, including enrollment challenges common to rare disease populations, which were heightened as a result of the pandemic; a growing understanding in the transplant field of the current challenges of allogeneic stem cell transplant in patients with diseases, including inherited metabolic diseases; and feedback from the FDA on endpoints and clinical trial design for registration.

We will continue to evaluate the data for in blood cancers through the investigator-initiated Phase 2 trial in blood cancers at the University of Minnesota to inform best next steps for the program.

The ability to expand HSCs has the potential to improve outcomes with gene therapy or genome editing by increasing the dose of genetically modified stem cells. This has been a long-term goal of the field and

has the potential to reduce manufacturing costs for these therapies by requiring less viral vector for gene modification of the stem cells. Scaling up vector manufacturing in a cost-effective manner has been a significant challenge for gene therapy companies and a significant cost driver. Such cost and capacity issues could limit the commercial viability and widespread deployment of gene therapies.

We developed the E478 program in response to an unmet technological need recognized in the field of stem cell gene therapy – the challenge of achieving sufficiently high doses of gene-modified stem cells. E478 is a novel and proprietary small molecule AHR antagonist that was developed to increase the number of gene-modified HSCs for stem cell based-gene therapy. E478 uses the same clinically validated method used to produce AHR antagonism, to expand gene-modified HSCs.

We believe that E478 could represent a key component for unlocking the full value of gene therapy by providing each patient with an optimal dose of gene-modified HSCs for rapid and successful engraftment. In addition to addressing cell dose limitations, the ability to expand long-term repopulating HSCs has the potential to reduce manufacturing costs for these therapies by requiring less viral vector for gene modification of the stem cells.

We have shown that E478 can generate higher numbers of long-term engrafting human HSCs compared to other expansion technologies. We have presented and data demonstrating successful expansion of gene-modified HSCs from both bone marrow and mobilized blood cell sources with E478 and showed that expansion with E478 leads to higher and durable levels of engraftment in NSG mice compared to conventional culture approaches. Our data demonstrate that HSCs modified via lentiviral transduction, CRISPR/Cas9 and other gene-modifying approaches can be expanded by E478 and engraft in NSG mice.

We performed experiments designed to evaluate the ability of E478 to increase HSC numbers for HSC based gene therapy. In these studies, human CD34+ cells isolated from mobilized peripheral blood were cultured with cytokines in the presence or absence of E478 and transduced with lentiviral vectors expressing a green fluorescent protein to identify cells that were effectively transduced. Inclusion of E478 increased the number of CD34+ cells and significantly improved the level of human cell engraftment in NSG mice while maintaining high levels of transduction. Similar findings were observed using CRISPR-based approaches.

At the American Society of Cell and Gene Therapy annual meeting in May 2020, we presented data showing that expansion with E478 led to significantly higher rate and number of gene-corrected cells.

Mobilized blood CD34+ cells from healthy subjects were in cytokine-containing media followed by electroporation with CRISPR/Cas9 and AAV.GFP donor and expanded post-editing. Four day followed by a four day expansion (called a 4+4 culture) compared to a conventional two day period followed by a one day expansion (called a 2+1 culture). E478 was added to the 4+4 culture and compared to a conventional 2+1 culture with vehicle control.  Engraftment (frequency of human CD45+ cells); rate of homology-directed repair, or HDR; and  number of engraftable HDR+ cells was measured in the peripheral blood at week 16 post-transplant. Bars represent median and each symbol represents an individual mouse (n=eight). Statistics were determined by a Student’s

organization. We intend to leverage any infrastructure developed for our lead product candidate, to support commercialization of any additional product candidates in our portfolio for which we gain approval. In addition, we expect to build upon physicians’ familiarity with to accelerate adoption of our other potential products. As additional product candidates advance through our pipeline, our commercial plans may change. In particular, some of our discovery-stage pipeline assets target autoimmune disease indications, which could potentially require additional commercial resources in order to engage with referring physicians outside of transplant centers and clinical trial sites.

We have assessed the existing stem cell transplant market and potential eligible patient population on a basis to estimate the potential number of patients that could benefit from Magenta’s product candidates.

Our product candidate has the potential to address the challenges in mobilizing and collecting stem cells faced by patients and healthy donors for transplant in blood cancer patients. Our conditioning programs, including our product candidate, have the potential to provide safer and more effective targeted conditioning for blood cancer patients, particularly allogeneic transplant candidates, who currently weight the tradeoffs of long-term efficacy and toxicity with current conditioning regimens that impact patient outcomes. Pending further development for the program informed by ongoing data, has the potential to offer allogeneic transplant recipients access to a well-matched cell therapy, with a high stem cell dose and the higher likelihood of durable clinical outcomes.

and Hodgkin’s lymphomas, cancers arising from lymphocytes or white blood cells, are diagnosed in approximately 180,000 patients annually in the major global markets. lymphoma, or NHL is the most common group of blood cancers, the largest of which is Diffuse Large Lymphoma, comprising approximately 33% of cases. Both major types of lymphomas can be treated by autologous stem cell transplant. Following diagnosis, patients typically undergo treatment with one or more therapeutic classes which may include chemotherapy, immunotherapy, cell therapy, targeted agents, and/or corticosteroids. After one or more courses of initial treatment, patients may proceed to a stem cell transplant depending on whether they are considered an appropriate candidate depending on several patient- and disease-related factors. Currently, approximately 10,500 lymphoma patients receive a stem cell transplant annually in the major global markets.

Myelodysplastic syndrome, or MDS, occurs when the blood-forming cells in the bone marrow become abnormal, leading to low numbers of one or more types of blood cells. It is diagnosed in approximately 46,000 patients annually in the major global markets. Approximately 35% of newly diagnosed MDS patients have intermediate- to high-risk disease and of those are eligible for stem cell transplant based on patient fitness (including age and comorbidities) and blast count. However, the current challenges of stem cell transplant, including highly toxic chemotherapy conditioning regimens, limit transplant to approximately 60% of those

Our product candidate has the potential to address patients with sickle cell disease who cannot receive because of the risk of triggering sickle cell crises, as well as other patients requiring collection of stem cells prior to gene therapy. Our conditioning program has the potential to provide safer, targeted conditioning for patients who are eligible to receive autologous stem cell gene therapies, including but not limited to patients with sickle cell disease, beta thalassemia, and lysosomal storage disorders. may also further expand the number of patients who are eligible for these currently investigational gene therapy product candidates. E478 uses the same clinically validated mechanism as to generate higher doses of gene-modified stem cells.

product candidate has the potential to be the first product specifically indicated for the mobilization of autoimmune disease patients, without the risks associated with In addition, our C100 conditioning program has the potential to provide safer, targeted conditioning for autoimmune disease patients eligible to receive autologous transplant. We are developing targeted conditioning approaches to grow the use of transplant in autoimmune disease significantly.

We do not own or operate, and currently have no plans to establish, any manufacturing facilities. We currently depend on third-party contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, for all of our requirements of raw materials, drug substance and drug product for our preclinical research and our ongoing clinical trials of and We have not entered into long-term agreements with our current CMOs. We intend to continue to rely on CMOs for later-stage development and commercialization of as well as the development and commercialization of and other product candidates that we may identify. Although we rely on CMOs, we have personnel and consultants with extensive manufacturing experience to oversee the relationships with our contract manufacturers.

We believe the synthesis of the drug substance used to manufacture drug product is reliable and reproducible from readily available starting materials, amenable to commercial-scale production, and does not require unusual equipment or handling in the manufacturing process. We have manufactured, and released for early clinical use, drug products which have been manufactured by our CMO to satisfy our immediate and near term clinical and preclinical needs. We expect to refine, scale, and optimize the process, including the final product formulation, for our development and commercial supply needs.

Manufacturing of any product candidate is subject to extensive regulations that impose various procedural and documentation requirements, which govern recordkeeping, manufacturing processes and controls, personnel, quality control and quality assurance, among others. We expect that all of our CMOs will manufacture and under current Good Manufacturing Practice, or cGMP, conditions. cGMP is a regulatory standard for the production of pharmaceuticals to be used in humans.

Stem cell transplant is used to treat a range of diseases and indications. We are aware of many companies that are developing therapeutics, including biologics, small molecules and therapies that are directed to the treatment of blood cancers, genetic diseases and autoimmune diseases that overlap with current stem cell transplant indications. The following competitive overview is focused on companies that are developing technologies to improve the distinct steps of stem cell transplant.

targeted conditioning program:

C100 program

In April 2017, we entered into a license agreement with Novartis pursuant to which Novartis granted us an exclusive, worldwide, sublicensable license to research, develop and commercialize certain licensed products that contain Novartis compounds for the expansion of cord blood derived HSCs. We refer to this agreement as the Novartis Agreement. The license granted to us under the Novartis Agreement is subject to certain rights retained by Novartis for internal research purposes and certain third parties for research and educational purposes. Certain of the rights licensed to us under the Novartis Agreement are also subject to any retained rights of the U.S. government in the licensed patents. The Novartis Agreement led to the establishment of as one of our programs. Under the terms of the Novartis Agreement, we are responsible for all research, development, regulatory and commercialization activities related to licensed products. We are required to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize licensed products in the U.S., United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, Italy and Japan.

Pursuant to the Novartis Agreement, we issued to Novartis 2,500,000 shares of Series A preferred stock and 643,550 shares of Series B preferred stock. We will be required to make milestone payments to Novartis upon dosing the first patient in Biologic Licensing Application, or BLA, enabling clinical trials and upon regulatory approvals of licensed products across ultra-orphan, hemoglobinopathies and other indications. For ultra-orphan indications, we may be required to pay development and regulatory milestones of up to $13.0 million for each of the first two indications, and up to $5.0 million for a third indication. For hemoglobinopathies, we may be required to pay development and regulatory milestones of up to $13.0 million per indication, for the first two indications. For all other indications that are not an ultra-orphan or hemoglobinopathy, we may be required to pay development and regulatory milestones of up to $75.0 million for the first indication and up to $45.0 million for the second indication. Across all licensed products, we may be required to pay Novartis up to $125.0 million in sales milestones, based on the first achievement of certain aggregate worldwide annual net sales thresholds. We are also required to pay tiered royalties to Novartis on worldwide net sales of licensed products by us, ranging from low single-digit percentages to up to 20% for higher net sales, which royalties are potentially subject to reduction and offset during the royalty term. Royalties are payable on a licensed product and basis until the later of (i) expiration of the last valid claim of a licensed patent right that covers the manufacture, use or sale of such licensed product, or the licensed compound used in the manufacture of such licensed product, in such country and (ii) ten years following the first commercial sale of such licensed product in such country.

Novartis controls the filing, prosecution, maintenance and enforcement of the licensed patent rights at its expense. We have the right to assume these responsibilities should Novartis not wish to pursue them. We own all rights in any intellectual property related to the licensed compound or licensed products that we solely develop under the Novartis Agreement. The Novartis Agreement does not otherwise allocate ownership of improvements developed thereunder; however, Novartis grants us a royalty-free license to practice any improvements that Novartis owns under the Novartis Agreement in connection with HSCs, and we grant a royalty-free license to Novartis to practice any improvements that we own under the agreement outside of such field.

The Novartis Agreement will continue until the royalty term for a licensed product unless terminated earlier by either party. Each party may terminate the Novartis Agreement due to the other party’s insolvency or uncured breach of a material obligation. We have the right to terminate the Novartis Agreement in its entirety or on a or basis for convenience upon 90 days’ prior written notice to Novartis. Upon termination of the Novartis Agreement by us for convenience or by Novartis for cause, the license granted to us by Novartis will terminate and we will grant a worldwide, perpetual, license to Novartis to develop and commercialize the licensed products under any intellectual property that we (i) control and used in the development, manufacture or commercialization of licensed products or (ii) developed under the agreement to develop and commercialize the licensed products.

Pursuant to the Harvard Agreement, we made an upfront payment to Harvard of $85,000 and issued to Harvard and the other of the licensed patent rights (The General Hospital Corporation d/b/a

Harvard is entitled to payments upon certain development and regulatory milestones for the first two licensed products of up to $7.4 million per licensed product. In addition, we must pay Harvard digit royalties on net sales of licensed products. If we or our affiliates or sublicensees under the Harvard Agreement commence a legal action to challenge the validity, enforceability or scope of any licensed patents, the royalty rate payable to Harvard will double during the pendency of such proceeding and will remain double thereafter if such action is determined in Harvard’s favor. Depending on the type of licensed product, royalties are payable on a and basis until the later of (i) the last to expire valid claim in the applicable country covering or claiming the composition, manufacture, sale or use of such licensed product and (ii) 12 years from the date of the first commercial sale of such licensed product in such country.

Under the terms of the Heidelberg Agreement, Heidelberg Pharma has granted to us a worldwide, research license for a period with respect to certain targets set forth in an research plan. We have the option to extend such license for up to an additional three years. We also have an option to obtain an exclusive target-specific research license, which would expire two years after the exercise of such option. In addition, we will have an option to obtain a target-specific exclusive license for global development and commercialization rights to each of the product candidates resulting from the research collaboration. We may obtain such exclusive target-specific rights to up to four targets. We are required to use commercially reasonable efforts to perform our research activities under the Heidelberg Agreement and, if we exercise our right to obtain a development and commercialization license, we are required to use commercially reasonable efforts to pursue development and commercialization of a product directed to the applicable target.

In addition, we granted Heidelberg Pharma a worldwide, license under all of our patents and and any improvements of the foregoing developed under the Heidelberg Agreement, that are reasonably necessary or useful for Heidelberg Pharma to perform its research activities under the Heidelberg Agreement. In addition, we grant Heidelberg Pharma a worldwide, royalty-free, license under all joint improvements developed under the Heidelberg Agreement for research purposes only.

Payment terms to Heidelberg Pharma include an upfront technology access fee, research exclusivity fees with respect to the two initial targets, and payments for research support. Heidelberg Pharma is entitled to additional fees of between $50,000 and $1.1 million in the aggregate if we extend the initial research license or if we exercise our research exclusivity options with respect to additional targets. Upon our exercise of an option for an exclusive development and commercialization license, with respect to a target, we are required to make a low single digit million-dollar payment to Heidelberg Pharma for each exercised option. In addition, we may be required to pay development, regulatory and commercial milestones totaling up to approximately $83.5 million per target. We will pay Heidelberg Pharma digit royalties on a and basis, on worldwide net product sales of licensed products. Royalties are payable on a licensed product and basis until the later of (i) expiration of the last valid claim of a licensed patent right that covers the use, import, offering for sale, or sale of such licensed product in such country, and (ii) ten years following the first commercial sale of such licensed product in such country. We have the option to royalties at certain points during the development path of each product.

The term of the Heidelberg Agreement will continue until the last to expire royalty term unless terminated earlier by either party. Each party has the right to terminate the Heidelberg Pharma Agreement due to the other party’s uncured material breach or insolvency on a or basis. We have the right to terminate the Heidelberg Agreement for convenience in its entirety or on a or basis upon 60 days’ prior written notice to Heidelberg Pharma if terminating before the first commercial sale of a product in a country or upon six months’ prior written notice to Heidelberg Pharma if terminating after the first commercial sale of any product directed to such target in such country.

In February 2018, we entered into a Master Development and Manufacturing Agreement with Bachem Americas, Inc., or Bachem. This agreement, which we refer to as the Bachem Agreement, governs several projects related to the development and manufacture of CXCR2 agonists, including each pursuant to a separate project plan. The active pharmaceutical ingredient of is a 69 amino acid protein. We selected Bachem as our contract manufacturer for this program based on their deep expertise in the synthesis and production of proteins. Financial terms related to this agreement will be determined on a basis. In April 2018, we entered into an initial project plan pursuant to which Bachem will be responsible for producing batches of for GLP toxicology studies completed in 2018, as well as GMP material for the Phase 1 trial of which commenced in the second quarter of 2019.

The term of the Bachem Agreement is initially five years and will be automatically renewed for periods unless either party provides the other with written notice of nonrenewal at least three months prior to expiry. Each party may terminate the agreement upon a material uncured breach of the other party. During the

term, Bachem will be restricted from producing a set of agonists, including for clinical or commercial use by any third party without our prior written consent, as long as Bachem remains our primary supplier of CXCR2 agonists. Each project plan may be terminated independently of the agreement as a whole.

In January 2018, we entered into a Clinical Trial Agreement with the Regents of the University of Minnesota, or UMinn, pursuant to which UMinn will undertake a Phase 2 clinical trial with for the treatment of inherited metabolic disorders. Under this agreement, UMinn is also responsible for the manufacture and supply of the required quantities of for the trial, subject to specified quality assurance provisions.

Our CD117 patent portfolio contains patent families that we own covering compositions and methods for the depletion of CD117+ cells and includes patent families that cover the composition of matter and methods of use. As of December 31, 2020, our CD117 patent portfolio includes one issued U.S. patent, approximately eight pending U.S. patent applications, two issued Australian patents, more than 40 pending patent applications in foreign jurisdictions, approximately three families of pending U.S. provisional patent applications, and approximately seven pending PCT applications. The issued U.S. patent and the issued Australian patents would be expected to expire in 2037, absent any applicable patent term extensions. Any other patents that issue from the pending patent applications in this portfolio would be expected to expire between 2037 and 2041, absent any applicable patent term extensions.

patent portfolio contains patent families directed to methods of mobilizing HSCs. As of December 31, 2020, we owned one issued U.S. patent, approximately three pending U.S. patent applications, more than 15 pending foreign patent applications, and one pending PCT patent application. The issued U.S.

We have exclusively licensed a patent portfolio from Harvard applicable to our targeted conditioning and mobilization programs that contains patent families directed to compositions and methods for compositions and methods for mobilizing HSCs, and highly engraftable hematopoietic stem cells and their uses. As of December 31, 2020, this patent portfolio includes two issued U.S. patents, approximately six pending U.S. patent applications, and more than 20 pending patent applications in foreign jurisdictions. The issued U.S. patents would be expected to expire in 2036, absent any applicable patent term extensions. Any patents that issue from the pending patent applications in this patent portfolio would be expected to expire between 2034 and 2037, absent any applicable patent term extensions.

We have licensed a patent family from Novartis applicable to our program that is directed to AHR antagonists and their use in the expansion of HSCs. As of December 31, 2020, this family includes two issued U.S. patents, one with method claims covering the use of AHR antagonists in the expansion of HSCs and one with composition of matter claims covering AHR antagonists, two pending U.S. patent applications, and more than 80 issued patents and pending patent applications in jurisdictions worldwide. The issued U.S. patents are expected to expire in 2032 and 2031, respectively, absent any applicable patent term extensions. The issued foreign patents and any patents that may issue from U.S. and foreign pending patent applications in this family would be expected to expire in 2029, absent any applicable patent term extensions.

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term for patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries in which we have filed, including the U.S., the patent term is 20 years from the earliest filing date of application. In the U.S., a patent’s term may be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in examining and granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over an earlier filed patent. The term of a patent that covers a drug or biological product may also be eligible for patent term extension when FDA approval is granted for a portion of the term effectively lost as a result of the

In addition to patents, we rely upon unpatented trade secrets continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. However, trade secrets be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our proprietary information, in part, by executing confidentiality agreements with our collaborators and scientific advisors, and invention assignment agreements with our employees and consultants. We have also executed agreements requiring assignment of inventions with selected scientific advisors and collaborators. The confidentiality agreements we enter into are designed to protect our proprietary information and the agreements or clauses requiring assignment of inventions to us are designed to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed through our relationship with the respective counterparty. We cannot guarantee, however, that we have executed such agreements with all applicable counterparties, such agreements will not be breached, or that these agreements will afford us adequate protection of our intellectual property and proprietary rights. For more information, see the section entitled “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Intellectual Property”.

Compliance with various governmental regulations has an impact on our business, including our capital expenditures and competitive position, which can be material. We incur costs to monitor and take actions to comply with governmental regulations that are applicable to our business, which include, among others, federal securities laws and regulations, applicable stock exchange requirements, tax laws and regulations, environmental and health and safety laws and regulations and the regulations that govern our products and drug discovery efforts. Government authorities in the U.S. at the federal, state and local level and in other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of drug and biological products, such as and any other current or future product candidates. Generally, before a new drug or biologic can be marketed, considerable data demonstrating its quality, safety and efficacy must be obtained, organized into a format specific for each regulatory authority, submitted for review and approved by the regulatory authority.

and any other current or future product candidates must be approved by the FDA through either a New Drug Application, or NDA, or a Biologics License Application, or BLA, process before they may be legally marketed in the U.S. The process generally involves the following:

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

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

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

Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, as amended, each NDA or BLA must be accompanied by a user fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. According to the FDA’s fee schedule, effective through September 30, 2021, the user fee for an application requiring clinical data, such as an NDA or BLA, is $2,875,842. The sponsor of an approved NDA or BLA is also subject to an annual prescription drug program fee, which for fiscal year 2021 is $336,432. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on NDAs or BLAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a indication.

The FDA reviews all submitted NDAs and BLAs before it accepts them for filing and may request additional information rather than accepting the NDA or BLA for filing. The FDA generally makes a decision on accepting an NDA or BLA for filing within 60 days of receipt. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an review of the NDA or BLA. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under PDUFA, the FDA has ten months from the filing date to complete its initial review of a new molecular-entity NDA or original BLA and respond to the applicant, and six months from the filing date of a new molecular-entity NDA or original BLA designated for priority review. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority NDAs or BLAs, and the review process is often extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification.

Before approving an NDA or BLA, the FDA will conduct a inspection of the manufacturing facilities for the new product to determine whether they comply with cGMP requirements. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and are adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. The FDA also may audit data from clinical trials to ensure compliance with GCP requirements. Additionally, the FDA may refer applications for novel drug products or drug products which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation, and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions, if any. The FDA is not bound by recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations when making decisions on approval. The FDA likely will reanalyze the clinical trial data, which could result in extensive discussions between the FDA and the applicant during the review process. After the FDA evaluates an NDA or BLA, it will issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug or biologic with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete, and the application will not be approved in its present form. A Complete Response Letter usually describes all of the specific deficiencies in the NDA or BLA identified by the FDA. The Complete Response Letter may require additional clinical data, additional pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial(s) and/or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, preclinical studies or manufacturing. If a Complete Response Letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the NDA or BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies

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

The FDA has a fast track program that is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new drugs and biologics that meet certain criteria. Specifically, new drugs and biologics are eligible for fast track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and preclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Fast track designation applies to both the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor can request that the FDA designate the product for fast track status any time before receiving NDA or BLA approval, but ideally no later than the or meeting.

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, certain NDAs and BLAs and certain supplements to an NDA or BLA must contain data to assess the safety and efficacy of the drug for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of pediatric data or full or partial waivers. The FDCA, as amended, requires that a sponsor who is planning to submit a marketing application for a drug that includes a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen, or new route of administration submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan, or PSP, within 60 days of an 2 meeting or, if there is no such meeting, as early as practicable before the initiation of the Phase 3 or Phase 2/3 trial. The initial PSP must include an outline of the pediatric trial or trials that the sponsor plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, age groups, relevant endpoints and statistical approach, or a justification for not including such detailed information, and any request for a deferral of pediatric assessments or a full or partial waiver of the requirement to provide data from pediatric trials along with supporting information.

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

The FDA may also place other conditions on approvals including the requirement for a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, to assure the safe use of the product. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the NDA or BLA must submit a proposed REMS. The FDA will not approve the NDA or BLA without an approved REMS, if required. A REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription or dispensing of products. Product approvals may be withdrawn for with regulatory standards or if problems occur following initial marketing.

The federal civil and criminal false claims laws, including the civil False Claims Act, and civil monetary penalty laws impose civil penalties, including through civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, against individuals or entities (including manufacturers) for, among other things, knowingly presenting or causing to be presented false or fraudulent claims for payment by a federal healthcare program or making a false statement or record material to payment of a false claim or avoiding, decreasing or concealing an obligation to pay money to the federal government. Penalties for a False Claims Act violation include three times the actual damages sustained by the government, plus mandatory civil penalties for each separate false claim, the potential for exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs, and the potential implication of various federal criminal statutes. Manufacturers can be held liable under the federal False Claims Act even when they do not submit claims directly to government payors if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims. The government may deem manufacturers to have “caused” the submission of false or fraudulent claims by, for example, providing inaccurate billing or coding information to customers or promoting a product Claims which include items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute are false or fraudulent claims for purposes of the False Claims Act. The federal False Claims Act also permits a private individual acting as a “whistleblower” to bring actions on behalf of the federal government alleging violations of the False Claims Act and to share in any monetary recovery. Our future marketing and activities relating to the reporting of wholesaler or estimated retail prices for our products, the reporting of prices used to calculate Medicaid rebate information and other information affecting federal, state and third-party reimbursement for our products, as well as the sale and marketing of our product and any future product candidates, are subject to scrutiny under this law.

The Physician Payments Sunshine Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, which requires applicable manufacturers of covered drugs, biologics, and medical supplies (those paid for by a federal healthcare program) to report annually to CMS information related to any payments and other transfers of value made to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors) and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Effective January 1, 2022, these reporting obligations will extend to include transfers of value made to certain providers such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners.

State and foreign laws also govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts. For example, in California, the California Consumer Protection Act, or CCPA, which went into effect on January 1, 2020, establishes a new privacy framework for covered businesses by creating an expanded definition of personal information, establishing new data privacy rights for consumers in the State of California, imposing special rules on the collection of consumer data from minors, and creating a new and potentially severe statutory damages framework for violations of the CCPA and for businesses that fail to implement reasonable security procedures and practices to prevent data breaches. While clinical trial data and information governed by HIPAA are currently exempt from the current version of the CCPA, other personal information may be applicable and possible changes to the CCPA may broaden its scope. In addition, a new California ballot initiative, the California Privacy Rights Act, or CPRA, was passed in November 2020. Effective starting on January 1, 2023, the CPRA imposes additional obligations on companies covered by the legislation and will significantly modify the CCPA, including by expanding consumers’ rights with respect to certain sensitive personal information.

With the new administration and Congress, there will likely be additional administrative or legislative changes, including modification, repeal, or replacement of all, or certain provisions of the ACA which may impact reimbursement for drugs and biologics. For example the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, or TCJA, includes a provision that decreased, effective January 1, 2019, the shared responsibility payment imposed by the ACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate,” to $0. On December 14, 2018, a U.S. District

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

Market exclusivity provisions under the FDCA also can delay the submission or the approval of certain applications. The FDCA provides a five-year period of marketing exclusivity within the U.S. to the first applicant to gain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the action of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company for another version of such drug where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data

required for approval. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or The FDCA also provides three years of marketing exclusivity for an NDA, 505(b)(2) NDA or supplement to an existing NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, for example, new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the conditions of use associated with the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs for drugs containing the original active agent. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA. However, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

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

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

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

In the EEA, innovative medicinal products qualify for eight years of data exclusivity upon marketing authorization and an additional two years of market exclusivity. The data exclusivity, if granted, prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from referencing the innovator’s and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization in the EAA. During the additional period of market exclusivity, a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization application can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic or biosimilar product can be marketed until the expiration of the market exclusivity. The overall 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 determined to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with currently approved 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 marketing authorization application with a complete independent data package of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical tests and clinical trials.

From January 1, 2021, a separate process for orphan drug designation will apply in Great Britain. There will be no authorization orphan designation (as there is in the EEA) and the application for orphan designation will be reviewed by the MHRA, at the time of the marketing authorization application. The criteria

The collection and use of personal health data in the European Union is governed, as of May 2018, by the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR. The GDPR imposes several requirements on companies that process personal data, including requirements relating to the processing of health and other sensitive data, the consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, the information provided to the individuals regarding data processing activities, the notification of data processing obligations to the competent national data protection authorities and certain measures to be taken when engaging third-party processors. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data out of the European Economic Area, including to the U.S. Failure to comply with the requirements of the GDPR, and the related national data protection laws of the European Union Member States, may result in fines and other administrative penalties, including potential fines of up to €20 million or 4% of annual global revenues, whichever is greater. The GDPR also confers a private right of action on 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. The GDPR regulations may impose additional responsibility and liability in relation to personal data that we process, and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms ensuring compliance with the new data protection rules, including as implemented by individual countries. This may be onerous and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, further to the U.K.’s exit from the European Union on January 31, 2020, the GDPR ceased to apply in the U.K. at the end of the transition period on December 31, 2020. However, as of January 1, 2021, the U.K.’s European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 incorporated the GDPR (as it existed on December 31, 2020 but subject to certain U.K. specific amendments) into U.K. law (referred to as the U.K. GDPR). The U.K. GDPR and the U.K. Data Protection Act 2018 set out the U.K.’s data protection regime, which is independent from but aligned to the European Union’s data protection regime. with the U.K. GDPR may result in monetary penalties of up to £17.5 million or 4% of worldwide revenue, whichever is higher. The U.K., however, is now regarded as a third country under the European Union’s GDPR which means that transfers of personal data from the EEA to the U.K. will be restricted unless an appropriate safeguard, as recognized by the European Union’s GDPR, has been put in place. Although, under the Trade Cooperation Agreement it is lawful to transfer personal data between the U.K. and the EEA for a 6 month period following the end of the transition period, with a view to achieving an adequacy decision from the European Commission during that period. Like the European Union GDPR, the U.K. GDPR restricts personal data transfers outside the U.K. to countries not regarded by the U.K. as providing adequate protection (this means that personal data transfers from the U.K. to the EEA remain free flowing). Compliance with the GDPR and the U.K. GDPR is a rigorous and time-intensive process that may increase our cost of doing business or require us to change our business practices, and

Various laws, regulations and executive orders also restrict the use and dissemination outside of the U.S., or the sharing with certain nationals, of information classified for national security purposes, as well as certain products and technical data relating to those products. If we expand our presence outside of the U.S., it will require us to dedicate additional resources to comply with these laws, and these laws may preclude us from developing, manufacturing, or selling certain products and product candidates outside of the U.S., which could limit our growth potential and increase our development costs.

Sales of our products will depend, in part, on the extent to which our products will be covered by third-party payors, such as government health programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations. In the U.S., no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug or biological products exists. Accordingly, decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided for any of our products will be made on a basis. The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the

The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, or the MMA, established the Medicare Part D program to provide a voluntary prescription drug benefit to Medicare beneficiaries. Under Part D, Medicare beneficiaries may enroll in prescription drug plans offered by private entities that provide coverage of outpatient prescription drugs. Unlike Medicare Part A and B, Part D coverage is not standardized. While all Medicare drug plans must give at least a standard level of coverage set by Medicare, Part D prescription drug plan sponsors are not required to pay for all covered Part D drugs, and each drug plan can develop its own drug formulary that identifies which drugs it will cover and at what tier or level. However, Part D prescription drug formularies must include drugs within each therapeutic category and class of covered Part D drugs, though not necessarily all the drugs in each category or class. Any formulary used by a Part D prescription drug plan must be developed and reviewed by a pharmacy and therapeutic committee. Government payment for some of the costs of prescription drugs may increase demand for products for which we receive marketing approval. However, any negotiated prices for our products covered by a Part D prescription drug plan likely will be lower than the prices we might otherwise obtain. Moreover, while the MMA applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own payment rates. Any reduction in payment that results from the MMA may result in a similar reduction in payments from payors.

In addition, the Trump administration’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2021 includes a $135 billion allowance to support legislative proposals seeking to reduce drug prices, increase competition, lower drug costs for patients, and increase patient access to lower-cost generic and biosimilar drugs. On March 10, 2020, the Trump administration sent “principles” for drug pricing to Congress, calling for legislation that would, among other things, cap Medicare Part D beneficiary pharmacy expenses, provide an option to cap Medicare Part D beneficiary monthly expenses, and place limits on pharmaceutical price increases. Additionally, the Trump administration previously released a “Blueprint” to reduce the cost of drugs. HHS has solicited feedback on some measures and has implemented others under its existing authority. For example, in May 2019, CMS issued a final rule that would allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option of using step therapy, a type of prior authorization, for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020. This final rule codified CMS’s policy change that was effective January 1, 2019.

In addition, in most foreign countries, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing drug pricing and reimbursement vary widely from country to country. For example, the European Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. Reference pricing used by various European Union member states and parallel distribution, or arbitrage between and high-priced member states, can further reduce prices. A member state may approve a specific price for the medicinal product, or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. In some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial or other trials that compare the cost-effectiveness of any of our product candidates to other available therapies in order to obtain or maintain reimbursement or pricing approval. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products. Historically, products launched in the European Union do not follow price structures of the U.S. and generally prices tend to be significantly lower. 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 reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, our revenues from sales by us or our strategic partners and the potential profitability of any of our product candidates in those countries would be negatively affected.

Our human capital resource objectives include, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, retaining, incentivizing and integrating our employees with the common purpose of helping more patients live free from disease. At Magenta, we celebrate our differences and value the power of a diverse array of people who bring all of themselves to their work. We embrace cultural, racial, gender, cognitive, social and professional diversity because we know that the only way we are going to make new cures possible is by working together. We prioritize employee development and seek to align employees’ goals with Magenta’s overall strategic direction. We use our equity incentive plan to attract, retain and motivate selected employees, consultants and directors through the granting of stock-based compensation awards to achieve short- and long-term results that are in the best interests of investors, Magenta’s mission and our patients. For additional information on the impact of on our employees, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Impact of the Pandemic”.

We are an “emerging growth company” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012. We will remain an emerging growth company until the earlier of: (i) the last day of the fiscal year (a) following the fifth anniversary of the completion of the IPO, (b) in which we have total annual gross revenue of at least $1.07 billion, or (c) in which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer, which means the market value of our common stock that is held by exceeds $700.0 million as of the prior June 30th, and (ii) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in debt during the prior three-year period.

We are also a “smaller reporting company” as defined in the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act. We may continue to be a smaller reporting company even after we are no longer an emerging growth company. We may take advantage of certain of the scaled disclosures available to smaller reporting companies until the fiscal year following the determination that our voting and common stock held by is more than $250 million measured on the last business day of our second fiscal quarter, or our annual revenues are more than $100 million during the most recently completed fiscal year and our voting and common stock held by is more than $700 million measured on the last business day of our second fiscal quarter.

Our principal executive offices are located at 100 Technology Square, Cambridge, MA 02139, and our telephone number is website address is . Our website and the information contained on, or that can be accessed through, the website will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference in, and are not considered part of, this Annual Report on Form

Our Internet address is . Our Annual Reports on Quarterly Reports on Current Reports on including exhibits, proxy and information statements and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act are available through the “Investors” portion of our website free of charge as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. Information on our website is not part of this Annual Report on or any of our other securities filings unless specifically incorporated herein by reference. In addition, our filings with the SEC may be accessed through the SEC’s Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis and Retrieval system at . All statements made in any of our securities filings, including all forward-looking statements or information, are made as of the date of the document in which the statement is included, and we do not assume or undertake any obligation to update any of those statements or documents unless we are required to do so by law.

Widespread outbreak of illness or other communicable diseases, health epidemics, or any other public health crisis could adversely affect our ongoing or planned research and development activities. For example, in December 2019, an outbreak of a novel strain of coronavirus originated in Wuhan, China, and has since spread to a number of other countries, including the U.S. To date, the pandemic has caused widespread disruptions to the U.S. and global economy and has contributed to significant volatility and negative pressure in financial markets. The global impact of the outbreak is continually evolving and, as additional cases of the virus are identified, many countries, including the U.S., have reacted by instituting quarantines, restrictions on travel and mandatory closures of businesses. Certain states and cities, including where we or the third parties with whom we engage operate, have also reacted by instituting quarantines, restrictions on travel, “stay at home” rules, restrictions on types of business that may continue to operate and restrictions on the types of construction projects that may continue.

The extent to which the pandemic impacts our business, financial condition and results of operations will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence, including the scope, severity and duration of such pandemic, the actions taken to contain the pandemic or mitigate its impact, including the adoption of available vaccines, as well as the effect of any relaxation of current restrictions within the Cambridge community or regions in which our partners and clinical sites are located, and the direct and indirect economic effects of the pandemic and containment measures, among others. The rapid development and fluidity of this situation precludes any prediction as to the full adverse impact of the pandemic. Nevertheless, the pandemic has affected, and may continue to adversely affect, our business, financial condition and results of operations, and it has had, and may continue to have, the effect of heightening many of the risks described in this Annual Report on Form including but not limited to, the following:

Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since our inception. We expect to continue to spend substantial amounts of cash (including the net proceeds from our initial public offering, or IPO, and our public offerings in May 2019 and June 2020) to conduct further research and development and preclinical testing and clinical trials of our product candidates, to seek regulatory approvals for our product candidates and to launch and commercialize any product candidates for which we receive regulatory approval, including potentially building our own commercial organization to address the U.S., the European Union and certain other markets. As of December 31, 2020, we had approximately $148.8 million in cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities. Our monthly spending levels will vary based on new and ongoing development and corporate activities. Because the length of time and activities associated with successful development of our product candidates is highly uncertain, we are unable to estimate the actual funds we will require for development and any approved marketing and commercialization activities. Our future funding requirements, both near and long-term, will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to:

We are a clinical stage company. We were founded and commenced operations in June 2015. Our operations to date have been limited to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, acquiring and developing our technology, identifying potential product candidates, and undertaking preclinical studies and clinical trials. Although we have initiated clinical trials for and we have not yet demonstrated an ability to successfully complete clinical trials of our product candidates; obtain marketing approvals; manufacture a commercial-scale medicine, or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf; or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful commercialization. Typically, it takes about 10 to 15 years to develop a new medicine from the time it is discovered to when it is available for treating patients. Consequently, any predictions we make about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history.

We are early in our development efforts for our product candidates, including Our ability to generate product revenue, which we do not expect will occur for many years, if ever, will depend heavily on the successful development and eventual commercialization of our product candidates, which may never occur. We currently generate no revenue from sales of any product, and we may never be able to develop or commercialize a marketable product.

We may experience delays in completing our preclinical studies and initiating or completing clinical trials. For example, we staggered the initiation of our Phase 2 trials for over the course of 2020 and 2021 due to the clinical trial impacts from We also may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, any current or future clinical trials that we could conduct that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval or commercialize our product candidates, including:

As a company, we have never obtained regulatory approval for, or commercialized, a drug. It is possible that the FDA may refuse to accept any or all future NDA or BLAs for substantive review or may conclude after review of our data that our application is insufficient to obtain regulatory approval for any current or future product candidates. If the FDA does not approve any future NDAs or BLAs, it may require that we conduct additional costly clinical, preclinical or manufacturing validation studies before it will reconsider our applications. Depending on the extent of these or any approval of any NDA or BLA or other application that we submit may be significantly delayed, possibly for several years, or may require us to expend more resources than we have available. Any failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approvals would prevent us from commercializing or any other product candidate, generating revenues and achieving and sustaining profitability. It is also possible that additional studies, if performed and completed, may not be considered sufficient by the FDA to approve any NDA or other application that we submit. If any of these outcomes occur, we may be forced to abandon the development of our product candidates, which would materially adversely affect our business and could potentially cause us to cease operations. We face similar risks for our applications in foreign jurisdictions.

subject to many of the risks that are currently inherent to this procedure. In particular, stem cell transplant involves certain known potential post-procedure complications that may manifest several weeks or months after a transplant and which may be more common in certain patient populations. For example, up to 20% of patients with inherited metabolic disorders treated with a transplant experience primary engraftment failure, resulting in severe complications, including death. Another example is autoimmune cytopenia, a known and severe frequent complication of the transplant procedure in patients with diseases such as inherited metabolic diseases, that can result in death. If these or other serious adverse events, undesirable side effects, or unexpected characteristics are identified during the development of any of our product candidates, we may need to limit, delay or abandon our further clinical development of those product candidates, even if such events, effects or characteristics were the result of stem cell transplant or related procedures generally, and not directly or specifically caused or exacerbated by our product candidates. All serious adverse events or unexpected side effects are continually monitored per the clinical trial’s approved protocol. If serious adverse events are determined to be directly or specifically caused or exacerbated by our product candidates, we would follow the trial protocol’s requirements, which call for our data safety monitoring committee to review all available clinical data in making a recommendation regarding the trial’s continuation.

ADCs utilize toxins to kill cells, and we may not be able to identify a safe and effective dose for some of our potential product candidates. ADCs, including those that have received marketing approval, have dose-dependent safety findings that can include liver toxicity, depending on the target of the ADC and the drug used in the conjugate. In addition, ADCs may have other adverse side effects including fatalities. Although our which was designed to deplete hematopoietic stem cells, or HSCs, was generally well tolerated at efficacious doses in primate studies, we may not be able to ultimately show that can deplete HSCs at a safe and effective dose in humans and we may need to delay, abandon or limit these development efforts. Further, utilizes an amanitin toxin that has not been tested as an ADC toxin in humans before. Other companies, for example Heidelberg Pharma, are developing ADCs with amanitin toxins and are expected to enter clinical trials. Heidelberg Pharma has filed an IND with the FDA that has been accepted. If such trials encounter safety or efficacy issues, especially if related to the amanitin toxin, then our program may be adversely affected.

If we are successful at obtaining regulatory approval for or any of our other product candidates, regulatory agencies in the U.S. and other countries where a product will be sold may require extensive additional clinical trials or post-approval clinical trials that are expensive and time-consuming to conduct. In particular, therapeutic products administered for the treatment of certain inherited metabolic disorders, such as Hurler syndrome and leukodystrophies, are likely to require extensive studies and close monitoring of patients after regulatory approval has been granted, for any signs of adverse effects that occur over a long period of time. These studies may be expensive and time-consuming to conduct and may reveal side effects or other harmful effects in patients that use our therapeutic products after they are on the market, which may result in the limitation or withdrawal of our drugs from the market. Alternatively, we may not be able to conduct such additional trials, which might force us to abandon our efforts to develop or commercialize certain product candidates. Even if post-approval studies are not requested or required, after our products are approved and on the market, there might be safety issues that emerge over time that require a change in product labeling, additional postmarket studies or clinical trials, imposition of distribution and use restrictions under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, or withdrawal of the product from the market, which would cause our revenue to decline.

During the regulatory review process, we will need to identify success criteria and endpoints such that the FDA, the EMA, or other regulatory authorities will be able to determine the clinical efficacy and safety profile of any product candidates we may develop. As we are initially seeking to identify and develop product candidates to treat diseases in which there is little clinical experience using new technologies, there is heightened risk that the FDA, the EMA, or other regulatory authorities may not consider the clinical trial endpoints that we propose to provide clinically meaningful results (reflecting a tangible benefit to patients). In addition, the resulting clinical data and results may be difficult to analyze. Even if the FDA does find our success criteria to be sufficiently validated and clinically meaningful, we may not achieve the endpoints to a degree of statistical significance. This may be a particularly significant risk for many of the genetically defined diseases for which we plan to develop product candidates because many of these diseases have small patient populations and designing and executing a rigorous clinical trial with appropriate statistical power is more difficult than with diseases that have larger patient populations. Further, even if we do achieve the criteria, we may produce results that are unpredictable or inconsistent with the results of the endpoints or other relevant data. The FDA also weighs the benefits of a product against its risks, and the FDA may view the efficacy results in the context of safety as not being supportive of regulatory approval. Other regulatory authorities in the European Union and other countries, such as the Committee for Advanced Therapies may make similar comments with respect to these endpoints and data. Any product candidates we may develop will be based on a novel technology that makes it difficult to predict the time and cost of development and of subsequently obtaining regulatory approval.

Designation as a breakthrough therapy is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe one of our product candidates meets the criteria for designation as a breakthrough therapy, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. In any event, the receipt of a Breakthrough Therapy Designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to drugs considered for approval under FDA review procedures and does not assure ultimate

The FDA granted Orphan Drug designation to for the mobilization of HSCs to the peripheral blood for collection and subsequent transplant in May 2020 and we plan to seek Orphan Drug designation for our other product candidates if the clinical data support such a designation. The U.S. and Europe may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Orphan Drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process, but does make the product eligible for orphan drug exclusivity, reduced filing fees and specific tax credits. Generally, if a company receives the first marketing approval for a product with an Orphan Drug designation in the clinical indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity. Orphan drug exclusivity means that the FDA will not approve another application to market the same drug for the same indication, except in limited circumstances, for a period of seven years in the U.S. This exclusivity, however, could block the approval of our proposed product candidates if a competitor obtains marketing approval before us. However, even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for any of our proposed product candidates, we may not be able to maintain it. For example, if a competitive product is shown to be clinically superior to our product candidates, any orphan drug exclusivity we have will not block the approval of such competitive product.

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

endpoints in clinical trials, the regulatory authorities may not complete their review processes in a timely manner, or we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval. Additional delays may result if an FDA Advisory Committee or other regulatory authority recommends or restrictions on approval. In addition, we may experience delays or rejections based upon additional government regulation from future legislation or administrative action, or changes in regulatory authority policy during the period of product development, clinical trials, and the review process.

If the FDA determines that a product candidate offers a treatment for a serious condition and, if approved, the product would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness, the FDA may designate the product candidate for priority review. A priority review designation means that the goal for the FDA to review an application is six months, rather than the standard review period of ten months. We may request priority review for our product candidates, however, we cannot assume that our product candidates will meet the criteria for that designation. The FDA has broad discretion with respect to whether or not to grant priority review status to a product candidate, so even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for such designation or status, the FDA may decide not to grant it. Moreover, a priority review designation does not necessarily mean a faster development or regulatory review or approval process or necessarily confer any advantage with respect to approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. Receiving priority review from the FDA does not guarantee approval within the review cycle or at all.

setbacks in late-stage clinical trials after achieving positive results in earlier development, and we could face similar setbacks. The design of a clinical trial can determine whether its results will support approval of a product and flaws in the design of a clinical trial may not become apparent until the clinical trial is well advanced. In addition, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses. Many companies that believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain regulatory approval for their product candidates. Even if we complete clinical development of or any other product candidates, there can be no assurance that the FDA, EMA, or other regulatory authorities will approve or any other product candidates for marketing. Additionally, as of June 23, 2020, the FDA noted it is continuing to ensure timely reviews of applications for medical products during the pandemic in line with its user fee performance goals, however, the FDA may not be able to continue its current pace and approval timelines could be extended, including where a inspection or an inspection of clinical sites is required and, due to the pandemic and travel restrictions, the FDA is unable to complete such required inspections during the review period. In 2020, several companies announced receipt of complete response letters due to the FDA’s inability to complete required inspections for their applications.

We believe that if any of our product candidates are approved as a biological product under a BLA it should qualify for the period of exclusivity. However, there is a risk that the FDA will not consider any of our product candidates to be reference products for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for biosimilar competition sooner than anticipated. Additionally, this period of regulatory exclusivity does not apply to companies pursuing regulatory approval via their own traditional BLA, rather than via the abbreviated pathway. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar, once approved, will be substituted for any one of our reference products in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for products is not yet clear, and will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing. Finally, there has been public discussion of potentially decreasing the period of exclusivity from the current 12 years. If such a change were to be enacted, our product candidates, if approved, could have a shorter period of exclusivity than anticipated.

aware that collaborations between smaller companies and larger established companies may compete with our programs. Colleges, universities, governmental agencies and other public and private research organizations are becoming more active in seeking patent protection and licensing arrangements to collect royalties for use of technologies that they have developed, some of which may be directly competitive with our programs and product candidates. For additional information regarding our competition, see “Item 1. Business – Competition” in our Annual Report on Form

Although we intend to design our planned clinical trials for our product candidates, for the foreseeable future CROs will conduct all of our planned clinical trials. As a result, many important aspects of our development programs, including their conduct and timing, will be outside of our direct control. Our reliance on third parties to conduct future preclinical studies and clinical trials will also result in less control over the management of data developed through preclinical studies and clinical trials than would be the case if we were relying entirely upon our own staff.

In order to eventually market any of our product candidates in any particular foreign jurisdiction, we must establish and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements on a basis regarding safety and efficacy. Approval by the FDA in the U.S., if obtained, does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions. In addition, clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries, and regulatory approval in one country does not guarantee regulatory approval in any other country. Approval processes vary among countries and can involve additional product testing and validation and additional administrative review periods. Seeking foreign regulatory approval could result in difficulties and costs for us and require additional preclinical studies or clinical trials which could be costly and time-consuming. Regulatory requirements can vary widely from country to country and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products in those countries. The foreign regulatory approval process involves all of the risks associated with FDA approval. We do not have any product candidates approved for sale in any jurisdiction, including international markets, and we do not have experience in obtaining regulatory approval in international markets. If we fail to comply with regulatory requirements in international markets or to obtain and maintain required approvals, or if regulatory approvals in international markets are delayed, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our products will be unrealized.

In order to conduct clinical trials of and our other current and future product candidates, we will need to work with third-party manufacturers to manufacture them in sufficient quantities. Our manufacturing partners or our third-party collaborators may be unable to successfully increase the manufacturing capacity of and our other current or future product candidates in a timely or cost-effective manner, or at all. In addition, quality issues may arise during activities. If our manufacturing partners or collaborators are unable to successfully scale up the manufacture of our current or future product candidates in sufficient quality and quantity, the development, testing, and clinical trials of that product candidate may be delayed or infeasible, and marketing approval or commercial launch of any resulting product may be delayed or not obtained, which could significantly harm our business.

Further, in the U.S., no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors. As a result, obtaining coverage and reimbursement approval of a product from a government or other third-party payor is a time-consuming and costly process that could require us to provide to each payor supporting scientific, clinical and cost-effectiveness data for the use of our products on a basis, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be obtained. Even if we obtain coverage for a given product, the resulting reimbursement payment rates might not be adequate for us to maintain pricing sufficient to achieve or sustain profitability or may require that patients find unacceptably high. Additionally, third-party payors may not cover, or provide adequate reimbursement for, long-term evaluations required following the use of product candidates. Patients are unlikely to use our product candidates unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of our product candidates. Because our product candidates may have a higher cost of goods than conventional therapies, and may require long-term follow up evaluations, the risk that coverage and reimbursement rates may be inadequate for us to achieve profitability may be greater. There is significant uncertainty related to insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. It is difficult to predict at this time what third-party payors will decide with respect to the coverage and reimbursement for our product candidates.

In the U.S., there have been and continue to be a number of legislative initiatives to contain healthcare costs. For example, in March 2010 the ACA was passed, which substantially changes the way health care is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacts the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The ACA, among other things, subjects biological products to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars, addresses a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, expands the types of entities eligible for the 340B drug discount program, increases the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extends the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, establishes annual fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs, and creates a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 70% discounts (increased from 50% pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, effective January 1, 2019) off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D.

Some of the provisions of the ACA have yet to be fully implemented, while certain provisions have been subject to judicial and Congressional challenges, as well as efforts by the Trump administration to repeal or replace certain aspects of the ACA. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, some laws affecting the implementation of certain taxes under the ACA have been signed into law. For example, the TCJA includes a provision that decreased, effective January 1, 2019, the shared responsibility payment imposed by the ACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate,” to $0. On December 14, 2018, a District Court Judge in the Northern District of Texas, ruled that the individual mandate is a critical and inseverable feature of the ACA, and therefore, because it was repealed as part of the TCJA, the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. The current administration and CMS have both stated that the ruling will have no immediate effect, and on December 18, 2019, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held the individual mandate unconstitutional, and remanded the case to the lower court to reconsider its earlier invalidation of the full ACA. On March 2, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petitions for writs of certiorari to review this case, and held oral arguments on November 10, 2020. It is unclear what effect this will have on the status of the ACA and our business. Congress may also consider other legislation to repeal or replace certain elements of the ACA.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the U.S. since the ACA was enacted. On August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year. These reductions went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2030 unless additional congressional action is taken. However, pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, and subsequent legislation, these Medicare sequester reductions are suspended from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2020 due to the pandemic. Proposed legislation, if passed, would extend this suspension until the end of the pandemic. On January 2, 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

In addition, in most foreign countries, including those in the European Economic Area, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing drug pricing and reimbursement vary widely from country to country. For example, the European Union provides options for its Member States to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. Reference pricing used by various European Union Member States and parallel distribution, or arbitrage between and high-priced Member States, can further reduce prices. A Member State may approve a specific price for the medicinal product, or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. In some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial or other trials that compare the cost-effectiveness of any of our product candidates to other available therapies in order to obtain or maintain reimbursement or pricing approval. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products. An increasing number of countries are taking initiatives to attempt to reduce large budget deficits by focusing cost-cutting efforts on pharmaceuticals for their health care systems. These international price control efforts have impacted all regions of the world, but have been most drastic in the European Union. Historically, products launched in the European Union do not follow price structures of the U.S. and generally prices tend to be significantly lower. 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 reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, our revenues from sales by us or our strategic partners and the potential profitability of any of our product candidates in those countries would be negatively affected.

GDPR and the U.K. Data Protection Act 2018 set out the U.K.’s data protection regime, which is independent from but aligned to the European Union’s data protection regime. with the U.K. GDPR may result in monetary penalties of up to £17.5 million or 4% of worldwide revenue, whichever is higher. The U.K., however, is now regarded as a third country under the European Union’s GDPR which means that transfers of personal data from the EEA to the U.K. will be restricted unless an appropriate safeguard, as recognized by the European Union’s GDPR, has been put in place. Although, under the Trade Cooperation Agreement it is lawful to transfer personal data between the U.K. and the EEA for a 6 month period following the end of the transition period, with a view to achieving an adequacy decision from the European Commission during that period. Like the European Union GDPR, the U.K. GDPR restricts personal data transfers outside the U.K. to countries not regarded by the U.K. as providing adequate protection (this means that personal data transfers from the U.K. to the EEA remain free flowing). Compliance with the GDPR will be a rigorous and time-intensive process that may increase our cost of doing business or require us to change our business practices, and despite those efforts, there is a risk that we may be subject to fines and penalties, litigation, and reputational harm in connection with any future European or U.K. activities.

In the U.S., California recently enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA, which creates new individual privacy rights for California consumers (as defined in the law) and places increased privacy and security obligations on entities handling personal data of consumers or households. The CCPA will require covered companies to provide certain disclosures to consumers about its data collection, use and sharing practices, and to provide affected California residents with ways to of certain sales or transfers of personal information. The CCPA went into effect on January 1, 2020, and became enforceable by the California Attorney General on July 1, 2020. The CCPA provides for civil penalties for violations, as well as a private right of action for certain data breaches that result in the loss of personal information. This private right of action may increase the likelihood of, and risks associated with, data breach litigation. While there is currently an exception for protected health information that is subject to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, and clinical trial regulations, as currently written, the CCPA may impact our business activities. There continues to be uncertainty surrounding the enforcement and implementation of the CCPA, which exemplifies the vulnerability of our business to the evolving regulatory environment related to personal data and protected health information.

connection with providing a service on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also increased the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed against covered entities, business associates and possibly other persons, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, there may be additional federal, state and laws which govern the privacy and security of health and other personal information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Various laws, regulations and executive orders also restrict the use and dissemination outside of the U.S., or the sharing with certain nationals, of information classified for national security purposes, as well as certain products and technical data relating to those products. If we expand our presence outside of the U.S., it will require us to dedicate additional resources to comply with these laws, and these laws may preclude us from developing, manufacturing, or selling certain products and product candidates outside of the U.S., which could limit our growth potential and increase our development costs.

Separately, in response to the pandemic, on March 10, 2020 the FDA announced its intention to postpone most inspections of foreign manufacturing facilities while local, national and international conditions warrant. On March 18, 2020, the FDA announced its intention to temporarily postpone routine surveillance inspections of domestic manufacturing facilities and provided guidance regarding the conduct of clinical trials which the FDA continues to update. As of June 23, 2020, the FDA noted it was conducting mission critical domestic and foreign inspections to ensure compliance of manufacturing facilities with FDA quality standards. On July 10, 2020, the FDA announced its goal of restarting domestic inspections during the week of July 20, 2020, but such activities will depend on data about the virus’ trajectory in a given state and locality and the rules and guidelines that are put in place by state and local governments. The FDA has developed a rating system to assist in determining when and where it is safest to conduct prioritized domestic inspections. Should FDA determine that an inspection is necessary for approval and an inspection cannot be completed during the review cycle due to restrictions on travel, FDA has stated that it generally intends to issue a complete response letter. Further, if there is inadequate information to make a determination on the acceptability of a facility, FDA may defer action on the application until an inspection can be completed. In 2020, several companies announced receipt of complete response letters due to the FDA’s inability to complete required inspections for their applications. Regulatory authorities outside the U.S. may adopt similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to the pandemic and may experience delays in their regulatory activities. If a prolonged government shutdown or other disruption occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Future shutdowns or other disruptions could also affect other government agencies such as the SEC, which may also impact our business by delaying review of our public filings, to the extent such review is necessary, and our ability to access the public markets.

We currently have no sales, marketing or distribution capabilities and have no experience in marketing products. We intend to develop an marketing organization and sales force, which will require significant capital expenditures, management resources and time. We will have to compete with other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to recruit, hire, train and retain marketing and sales personnel.

There can be no assurance that we will be able to develop sales and distribution capabilities or establish or maintain relationships with third-party collaborators to commercialize any product in the U.S. or overseas.

Our ability to commercialize any medicines successfully also will depend in part on the extent to which reimbursement for these medicines and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers, and other organizations. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. For example, the Trump administration’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2021 includes a $135 billion allowance to support legislative proposals seeking to reduce drug prices, increase competition, lower drug costs for patients, and increase patient access to lower-cost generic and biosimilar drugs. On March 10, 2020, the Trump administration sent “principles” for drug pricing to Congress, calling for legislation that would, among other things, cap Medicare Part D beneficiary pharmacy expenses, provide an option to cap Medicare Part D beneficiary monthly expenses, and place limits on pharmaceutical price increases. The Trump administration also previously released a “Blueprint,” or plan, to reduce the cost of drugs. The Trump administration’s Blueprint contains certain measures that the Department of Health and Human Services is already working to implement. HHS has solicited feedback on some of these measures and has implemented others under its existing authority. For example, in May 2019, CMS issued a final rule to allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option of using step therapy, a type of prior authorization for Medicare Party B drugs beginning January 1, 2020. This final rule codified CMS’s policy change that was effective January 1, 2019. On December 27, 2018, the District Court for the District of Columbia invalidated a reimbursement formula change under the 340B drug pricing program and CMS subsequently altered the fiscal years 2019 and 2018 reimbursement formula on specified covered outpatient drugs. The court ruled this change was not an “adjustment” which was within the Secretary’s discretion to make but was instead a fundamental change in the reimbursement calculation. However, most recently, on July 31, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned the district court’s decision and found that the changes were within the Secretary’s authority. On September 14, 2020, the plaintiffs-appellees filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc (i.e, before the full court), but was denied on October 16, 2020. The 340B drug pricing program imposes ceilings on prices that drug manufacturers can charge for medications sold to certain health care facilities. It is unclear how these developments could affect covered hospitals who might purchase our future products and affect the rates we may charge such facilities for our approved products in the future, if any.

There may be significant delays in obtaining reimbursement for newly approved medicines, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the medicine is approved by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the U.S. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that any medicine will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale, and distribution. Interim reimbursement levels for new medicines, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the medicine and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost medicines and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Net prices for medicines may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of medicines from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the U.S. For example, on October 1, 2020, the FDA published a final rule that allows for the importation of certain prescription drugs from Canada. Under the final rule, States and Indian Tribes, and in certain future circumstances pharmacists and wholesalers, may submit importation program proposals to the FDA for review and authorization. On September 25, 2020, CMS stated drugs imported by states under this rule will not be eligible for federal rebates under Section 1927 of the Social Security Act and manufacturers would not report these drugs for “best price” or average manufacturer price purposes. Since these drugs are not considered covered outpatient drugs, CMS further stated it will not publish a National Average Drug Acquisition Cost for these drugs. Separately, the FDA also issued a final guidance document outlining a pathway for manufacturers to obtain an additional National Drug Code, or NDC, for an drug that was originally intended to be marketed in a foreign country and that was authorized for sale in that foreign country. Lastly, on July 24, 2020 and September 13, 2020, President Trump signed several Executive Orders aimed at lowering drug prices. On July 24, 2020, President Trump signed Executive Orders directing the Secretary of HHS to: (1) eliminate protection under an Anti-Kickback Statute safe harbor for certain retrospective price reductions provided by drug manufacturers to sponsors of Medicare Part D plans or pharmacy benefit managers that are not applied at the (2) allow the importation of certain drugs from other countries through individual waivers, permit the of insulin products, and prioritize finalization of the FDA’s December 2019 proposed rule to permit the importation of drugs from Canada; (3) ensure that payment by the Medicare program for certain Medicare Part B drugs is not higher than the payment by other comparable countries (depending on whether pharmaceutical manufacturers agree to other measures); and (4) allow certain individuals receiving insulin and epinephrine purchased by a Federally Qualified Health Center as part of the 340B drug pricing program to purchase those drugs at the discounted price paid by the Federally Qualified Health Center. On September 13, 2020, President Trump signed an Executive Order directing HHS to implement a rulemaking plan to test a payment model, pursuant to which Medicare would pay, for certain high-cost prescription drugs and biological products covered by Medicare Part B, no more than the most-favored-nation price (i.e., the lowest price) after adjustments, for a pharmaceutical product that the drug or biologic manufacturer sells in a member country of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that has a comparable gross domestic product. In response, on November 20, 2020, HHS issued an Interim Final Rule implementing the Most Favored Nation, or MFN, Model under which Medicare Part B reimbursement

rates will be calculated for certain drugs and biologicals based on the lowest price drug manufacturers receive in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries with a similar gross domestic product per capita. The MFN Model regulations mandate participation by identified Part B providers and will apply in all U.S. states and territories for a seven-year period beginning January 1, 2021, and ending December 31, 2027. The Interim Final Rule has not been finalized and is subject to revision and challenge. In addition, on November 20, 2020, finalized another regulation removing the safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the as well as a safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers. The FDA also on October 1, 2020, published a final rule that allows for the importation of certain prescription drugs from Canada as discussed above. It is unclear if, when, and to what extent the Executive Orders may be further implemented. The regulatory and market implications of the Executive Orders are unknown at this time, but legislation, regulations or policies allowing the reimportation of drugs may decrease the price we receive for our products and adversely affect our future revenues and prospects for profitability. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement policies. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and profitable payment rates from both government-funded and private payors for any approved medicines we may develop could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize medicines, and our overall financial condition.

Frequently foreign governments impose strict price controls on newly approved therapeutic products. If we obtain regulatory approval to sell products in foreign countries, we may be unable to obtain a price that provides an adequate financial return on our investment. Furthermore, we may face competition in the U.S. for our development candidates and investigational medicines, if approved, from therapies sourced from foreign countries that have placed price controls on pharmaceutical products. In the U.S., the FDA issued a final guidance document outlining a pathway for manufacturers to obtain an additional National Drug Code, for an drug that was originally intended to be marketed in a foreign country and that was authorized for sale in that foreign country. The market implications of the final guidance is unknown at this time. Proponents of drug reimportation may attempt to pass legislation that would directly allow reimportation under certain circumstances. Legislation or regulations allowing the reimportation of drugs, if enacted, could decrease the price we receive for any products that we may develop and adversely affect our future revenues and prospects for profitability.

In April 2017, we entered into a license agreement with Novartis pursuant to which we were granted a worldwide license to certain intellectual property rights owned or controlled by Novartis, including patents, patent applications, proprietary other intellectual property, to develop, commercialize and sell one or more therapeutic products comprising in the field of HSCs. In addition, in November 2016, we entered into a license agreement with Harvard University, or Harvard, pursuant to which we were granted a worldwide license to research, develop and commercialize one or more therapeutic products under certain conditioning- and mobilization-related patents and patent applications owned or controlled by Harvard. Furthermore, in March 2018, we entered into a research, development option and license agreement with Heidelberg Pharma Research GmbH, or Heidelberg Pharma, pursuant to which we intend to combine our proprietary antibodies and Heidelberg Pharma’s amanitin conjugates platform. We are dependent on the patents, and proprietary technology, licensed from Novartis and Harvard. Furthermore, if we commercialize any products utilizing Heidelberg Pharma’s amanitin conjugates platform, we will be dependent on the intellectual property rights we license from Heidelberg Pharma. Any termination of these licenses, or a finding that such intellectual property lacks legal effect, could result in the loss of significant rights and could harm our ability to commercialize our current or future product candidates.

To protect our proprietary position, we own and have certain issued patents and have filed and may file provisional and patent applications in the U.S. or abroad related to our product candidates that are important to our business. Provisional patent applications are not eligible to become issued patents until, among other things, we file a patent application within 12 months of the filing of one or more of our related provisional patent applications. If we do not timely file patent applications, we may lose our priority date with respect to our provisional patent applications and any patent protection on the inventions disclosed in our provisional patent applications. While we intend to timely file patent applications relating to our provisional patent applications, we cannot predict whether any such patent applications will result in the issuance of patents that provide us with any competitive advantage. Moreover, the patent application and approval process is expensive 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.

In some instances, agreements through which we license patent rights may not give us control over patent prosecution or maintenance, so that we may not be able to control which claims or arguments are presented, how claims are amended, and may not be able to secure, maintain, or successfully enforce necessary or desirable patent protection from those patent rights. We have not had and do not have primary control over patent prosecution and maintenance for certain of the patents and patent applications we license, including under our agreement with Novartis, and therefore cannot guarantee that these patents and applications will be prosecuted or maintained in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. We cannot be certain that patent prosecution and maintenance activities by our licensors have been or will be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations or will result in valid and enforceable patents. Moreover, some of our patents and patent applications are, and our future owned and licensed patents may be, with third parties. If we are unable to obtain an exclusive license to any such third-party interest in such patents or patent applications, such may be able to license their rights to other third parties, including our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and technology. In addition, we may need the cooperation of any such of our patents in order to enforce such patents against third parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us.

Our owned and licensed patents and pending patent applications, if issued, may not provide us with any meaningful protection or prevent competitors from designing around our patent claims to circumvent our patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or therapeutics in For example, a third party may develop a competitive therapy that provides benefits similar to one or more of our product candidates but falls outside the scope of our patent protection or license rights. If the patent protection provided by the patents and patent applications we hold or pursue with respect to our product candidates is not sufficiently broad to impede such competition, our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates could be negatively affected, which would harm our business. Currently, a significant portion of our patents and patent applications similar risks would apply to any patents or patent applications that we now own or may own the future.

Moreover, because the issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, our owned and licensed patents or pending patent applications may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the U.S. and abroad. There is no assurance that all of the potentially relevant prior art relating to our patents and patent applications has been found. If such prior art exists, it may be used to invalidate a patent, or may prevent a patent from issuing from a pending patent application. For example, such patent filings may be subject to a third-party submission of prior art to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, or to other patent offices around the world. Alternately or additionally, we may become involved in post-grant review procedures, oppositions, derivation proceedings, reexaminations, review, supplemental examinations, or interference proceedings or challenges in district court, in the U.S. or in various foreign patent offices, including both national and regional, challenging patents or patent applications in which we have rights, including patents on which we rely to protect our business. An adverse determination in any such challenges may result in loss of the patent or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, or in denial of the patent application or loss or reduction in the scope of one or more claims of the patent application, any of 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.

Issued patents that we have or may obtain or license may not 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 Our competitors may also seek approval to market their own products similar to or otherwise competitive with our products. Alternatively, our competitors may seek to market generic versions of any approved products by submitting Abbreviated New Drug Applications to the FDA in which they 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 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, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In addition to the protection afforded by patents, we rely upon trade secret protection, and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our contractors, collaborators, scientific advisors, employees and consultants and invention assignment agreements with our consultants and employees. However, we may not obtain these agreements in all circumstances, and individuals with whom we have these agreements may not comply with their terms. The assignment of intellectual property rights under these agreements may not be self-executing or the assignment agreements may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims that they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property. In addition, we may not be able to prevent the unauthorized disclosure or use of our technical or other trade secrets by the parties to these agreements despite the existence of confidentiality agreements and other contractual restrictions. Monitoring unauthorized uses and disclosures is difficult and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to protect our proprietary technologies will be effective. If any of the contractors, collaborators, scientific advisors, employees and consultants who are parties to these agreements breaches or violates the terms of any of these agreements, we may not have adequate remedies for any such breach or violation. As a result, we could lose our trade secrets. Enforcing a claim against a third party that illegally obtained and is using our trade secrets, like patent litigation, is expensive and time-consuming and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, courts outside the U.S. are sometimes less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets.

Our commercial success depends in part on our avoiding infringement, misappropriation and other violations of the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. There is a substantial amount of litigation involving patents and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, as well as administrative proceedings for challenging patents, including interference and reexamination proceedings before the USPTO or oppositions and other comparable proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. Recently, under U.S. patent reform, new procedures including review and post grant review have been implemented. As stated above, this reform will bring uncertainty to the possibility of challenge to our patents in the future. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are developing our product candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our product candidates may give rise to claims of infringement of the patent rights of others.

Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. For example, we are aware of certain patent applications owned by a third party with claims that if issued in their present form could be construed to cover If such patent claims are issued, the third party may seek to allege that our development and commercialization of infringes such patents and file a patent infringement lawsuit against us in the future. While we believe we would have valid defenses against any such allegation or lawsuit, such defenses may be unsuccessful. In this regard, patents issued in the U.S. by law enjoy a presumption of validity that can be rebutted only with evidence that is “clear and convincing,” a heightened standard of proof. There may also be third-party patents of which we are currently unaware with claims to materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our product candidates. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications which may later result in issued patents that our product candidates may infringe. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents. If any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover the manufacturing process of our product candidates, constructs or molecules used in or formed during the manufacturing process, or any final product itself, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize the product candidate unless we obtained a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire or they are finally determined to be held invalid or unenforceable. Similarly, if any third-party patent were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our formulations, processes for manufacture or methods of use, including combination therapy or patient selection methods, the holders of any such patent may be able to block our ability to develop and commercialize the product candidate unless we obtained a license or until such patent expires or is finally determined to be held invalid or unenforceable. In either case, such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we obtained such a license, it may only be which would permit third parties to use the same intellectual property and compete with us. If we are unable to obtain a necessary license to a third-party patent on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, we may be unable to commercialize our product candidates or such efforts may be impaired or delayed, which could in turn significantly harm our business.

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 a number of 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, of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. In such an event, our competitors might be able to enter the market earlier than would otherwise have been the case, which would have a material adverse effect on our business.

Many of the intellectual property rights we have licensed are generated through the use of U.S. government funding and are therefore subject to certain federal regulations. As a result, the U.S. government may have certain rights to intellectual property embodied in our current or future product candidates pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, or Bayh-Dole Act. These U.S. government rights in certain inventions developed under a government-funded program include a irrevocable worldwide license to use inventions for any governmental purpose. In addition, the U.S. government has the right to require us to grant exclusive, partially exclusive, or licenses to any of these inventions to a third party if it determines that: (1) adequate steps have not been taken to commercialize the invention; (2) government action is necessary to meet public health or safety needs; or (3) government action is necessary to meet requirements for public use under federal regulations (also referred to as rights”). The U.S. government also has the right to take title to these inventions if we, or the applicable licensor, fail to disclose the invention to the government and fail to file an application to register the intellectual property within specified time limits. Intellectual property generated under a government funded program is also subject to certain reporting requirements, compliance with which may require us or the applicable licensor to expend substantial resources. In addition, the U.S. government requires that any products embodying the subject invention or produced through the use of the subject invention be manufactured substantially in the U.S. The manufacturing preference requirement can be waived if the owner of the intellectual property can show that reasonable but unsuccessful efforts have been made to grant licenses on similar terms to potential licensees that would be likely to manufacture substantially in the U.S. or that under the circumstances domestic manufacture is not commercially feasible. This preference for U.S. manufacturers may limit our ability to contract with product manufacturers for products covered by such intellectual property. To the extent any of our current or future intellectual property is generated through the use of U.S. government funding, the provisions of the Bayh-Dole Act may similarly apply.

As is the case with other biopharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily 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. has recently enacted and is currently implementing wide-ranging patent reform legislation. 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 Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, 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. For example, in the case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that certain claims to DNA molecules are not patentable. In addition, the case affects the way antibody claims are examined and litigated. We cannot predict how future decisions by the courts, the Congress or the USPTO may impact the value of our patents.

Patents have a limited lifespan. In the U.S., if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from its earliest filing date of a application to which the patent claims priority. Various extensions may be available, but the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents covering our product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired for a product candidate, we may be open to competition from competitive medications, including generic medications. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such product candidates might expire before or shortly after such product candidates are commercialized. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing product candidates similar or identical to ours.

We employ individuals who were previously employed at universities or other biopharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees and consultants do not use the proprietary information or of others in their work for us, 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 a former employer or other third parties. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

We currently depend, and may in the future continue to depend, on third-party collaborators for the research, development, and commercialization of certain of the product candidates we may develop. Our collaborators for any other collaboration arrangements currently, and may in the future, include large and pharmaceutical companies, regional and national pharmaceutical companies, and biotechnology companies. If we enter into any such arrangements with any third parties, we will likely have limited control over the amount and timing of resources that our collaborators dedicate to the development or commercialization of any product candidates we may seek to develop with them. Our ability to generate revenues from these arrangements will depend on our collaborators’ abilities to successfully perform the functions assigned to them in these arrangements. We cannot predict the success of any collaboration that we enter into.