UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023

OR

Commission File Number 001-40560

ProKidney Corp.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its Charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (336) 999-7028

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the Registrant, based on the closing price of the ordinary shares on The Nasdaq Stock Market on June 30, 2023, was $688,858,985.

As of March 21, 2024, there were 61,621,330 Class A ordinary shares, par value $0.0001 per share and 167,722,201 Class B ordinary shares, par value $0.0001 per share, outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Table of Contents

In this Annual Report on Form 10-K, the terms “we”, “us”, “our”, the “Company” and “ProKidney” mean ProKidney Corp. (formerly Social Capital Suvretta Holdings Corp. III) and our subsidiaries. On July 11, 2022 (the “Closing Date”), Social Capital Suvretta Holdings Corp. III, an exempted company registered under the laws of the Cayman Islands (“SCS” and after the Business Combination described herein, the “Company”), consummated a business combination (the “Business Combination”) pursuant to the terms of the Business Combination Agreement, dated as of January 18, 2022 (the “Business Combination Agreement”), by and between SCS and ProKidney LP, a limited partnership (“PKLP”). Pursuant to the Business Combination and the other transactions contemplated by the Business Combination Agreement (collectively, the “Transactions”, and such completion, the “Closing”), PKLP became a subsidiary of SCS, and SCS changed its name to ProKidney Corp.

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

The following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with our financial statements and related notes that appear elsewhere in this report. In addition to historical financial information, the following discussion contains forward-looking statements that reflect our plans, estimates, assumptions and beliefs. Our actual results could differ materially from those discussed in the forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause or contribute to these differences include those discussed below and elsewhere in this report under “Part I—Item 1A, Risk Factors.” Forward-looking statements include information concerning our possible or assumed future results of operations, business strategies and operations, financing plans, potential growth opportunities, potential market opportunities, potential results of our drug development efforts or trials, and the effects of competition. Forward-looking statements include all statements that are not historical facts and can be identified by terms such as “anticipates,” “believes,” “could,” “seeks,” “estimates,” “expects,” “intends,” “may,” “plans,” “potential,” “predicts,” “projects,” “should,” “will,” “would” or similar expressions and the negatives of those terms. Given these uncertainties, you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Also, forward-looking statements represent our management’s plans, estimates, assumptions and beliefs only as of the date of this report. Except as required by law, we assume no obligation to update these forward-looking statements publicly or to update the reasons actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements, even if new information becomes available in the future.



 

Summary of Principal Risk Factors

Our business is subject to a number of risks, including risks that may prevent us from achieving our business objectives or may adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, and prospects. These risks are discussed more fully in “Part I – Item 1A, Risk Factors” below and include, but are not limited to, risks related to:

Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital

Development of Renal Autologous Cell Therapy or rilparencel (“REACT”) and Our Future Product Candidates

Manufacturing of REACT and Our Future Product Candidates

Commercialization of REACT and Our Future Product Candidates

Our Reliance on Third Parties

Legal and Regulatory Compliance Matters

Our Intellectual Property

Managing Our Business and Operations

Our Organizational Structure

PART I

Item 1. Business.

Overview

Prior to July 11, 2022, we were a blank check company registered under the laws of the Cayman Islands and formed for the purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization or similar business combination with one or more businesses. On July 11, 2022, we completed the Business Combination pursuant to the Business Combination Agreement dated January 18, 2022, that we entered into with PKLP. Upon the completion of the Business Combination, we changed our name to “ProKidney Corp.” and the business of PKLP became our business.

We are a clinical-stage biotechnology company with a transformative proprietary cell therapy platform that has the potential to treat multiple chronic kidney diseases using a patient’s own cells isolated from the patient intended for treatment. Our approach seeks to redefine the treatment of chronic kidney disease (“CKD”), shifting the emphasis away from management of kidney failure to the preservation, if not improvement, of kidney function. Our lead product candidate, rilparencel, which we sometimes refer to as REACT®, is designed to preserve kidney function in a CKD patient’s diseased kidneys. REACT is a product that includes autologous Selected Renal Cells (“SRC”) prepared from a patient’s own (autologous) kidney cells. SRC are formulated into a product for reinjection into the patient’s kidney using a minimally invasive outpatient procedure that might be repeatable, if necessary. Because REACT is a personalized treatment composed of cells prepared from a patient’s own kidney, there is no need for treatment with immunosuppressive therapies that are required during a patient’s lifetime when a patient receives a kidney transplant from another (allogeneic) donor.

We are currently conducting a global Phase 3 development program and multiple Phase 2 clinical trials for REACT in subjects with moderate to severe diabetic kidney disease (“DKD”). We also completed a Phase 1 clinical trial for REACT in subjects with CKD due to congenital anomalies of the kidney and urinary tract (“CAKUT”) for which the last subject visit occurred in January 2023 and the clinical study report was submitted to the FDA in December 2023. REACT has, to date, been generally well tolerated by subjects with moderate to severe CKD in Phase 1 and 2 clinical testing.

Our patented technology includes multiple breakthroughs in the manufacturing and medical delivery of cellular therapy products. While it has long been accepted that the body contains cells with regenerative power, our technology prepares key progenitor cells, or SRC, by expanding a patient’s own kidney cells for reinjection into the same patient in an attempt to preserve or improve kidney function that is being lost due to chronic diseases. Our process begins when a small piece or biopsy of a patient’s diseased kidney is sent to our manufacturing facility. We are able to process cells taken from the biopsy and select specific cells with a regenerative capacity. These SRC are formulated into a personalized product for reinjection into the damaged kidney(s). To date, clinical studies suggest that REACT has the capacity to, for a time, positively impact kidney function as reflected by stabilizing the estimated glomerular filtration rate (“eGFR”) or attenuating the rate of eGFR decline in patients with CKD caused by type 2 diabetes.

We are initially pursuing the development of REACT in the United States for use in patients with moderate to severe CKD caused by type 2 diabetes. We estimate that approximately 36-37 million adults, representing approximately 14% of the U.S. adult population, currently suffer from CKD. Chronic kidney disease is segmented into five CKD stages, from mild (CKD stage 1) to severe (CKD stage 5 or kidney failure). With respect to those patients with stage 3b and 4 CKD caused primarily by diabetes, we estimate that approximately 1.2 to 1.8 million patients could be eligible for treatment with REACT in the United States. The phase 3 developmental program includes other countries in North America, Europe, Latin and South America, and Asia Pacific.

We currently operate a manufacturing facility that has been designed to comply with FDA and European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) quality standards and to produce REACT treatments from biopsied material. This facility, based in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, in the United States, has a potential capacity sufficient to supply our global Phase 3 program as well as the first stage of a potential commercial launch, should REACT receive regulatory approval.

Our Pipeline

We are leveraging our cell therapy technology to develop product candidates designed to stop or delay kidney failure in CKD from diabetes and CAKUT. The following table summarizes our current clinical study pipeline:

REACT is an investigational therapy that is a mixture of kidney cells prepared from the participant’s own kidney tissue. The initial kidney tissue is obtained by a standard kidney biopsy performed by a specially trained physician. From this tissue, certain kidney cells, which are thought to be important for healing the kidney, are grown and multiplied in a highly specialized laboratory facility. After several weeks, when sufficient cells are available, the REACT preparation of cells is sent back to the clinical trial site where it can be injected directly into the participant’s own kidneys. It is believed that these SRC may help a diseased kidney stabilize or improve function over time, thereby potentially delaying the need for dialysis or transplantation by preserving kidney function.

Clinical studies suggest that REACT can impact kidney function positively by stabilizing eGFR, or attenuating the rate of eGFR decline, in patients with CKD caused by type 2 diabetes. We have developed a cryopreserved version of REACT that allows for long-term product preservation to be used in our Phase 3 trials of REACT (called REGEN-006 and REGEN-016), as well as our Phase 2 trial of REACT (called REGEN-007), treating patients with CKD caused by type 2 diabetes. In addition to the cryopreserved formulation of REACT, we used a gelatin-based hydrogel formulation in our Phase 2 trials (called RMCL-002 and REGEN-003) and Phase 1 trial in congenital anomalies of the kidney and urinary tract (“CAKUT”) (called REGEN-004). The cryopreserved version of REACT typically allows for preparation of up to 5-10 doses from a single biopsy sample. We have two preclinical programs (called REACT/Gen and REACT/Universal) where we plan to use genetically modified bioactive kidney cell populations to provide regenerative effects to a diseased kidney. The preclinical programs seek to create “universal donor” cell populations where gene editing is used to generate novel kidney cell populations that do not generate an immune response and so can be administered as an “off-the-shelf” product.

Our Team and Corporate History

We have an experienced internal research and development team focused on utilizing our deep understanding of kidney disease pathways to discover and develop novel cell-based therapies with a multi-modal mechanism targeting various pathways. Since our founding, we have expanded our team to incorporate additional expertise as needed to pursue our goal of becoming a fully integrated biopharmaceutical company. We have assembled key management team members with expertise in kidney disease, cell therapy, development, regulatory affairs, operations, quality, manufacturing and commercial.

ProKidney LLC, formerly, a wholly owned subsidiary of PKLP (“ProKidney Bermuda”), was formed in December 2018 as a Bermuda limited liability company and was founded by a group of investors in the pharmaceutical industry.

ProKidney (formerly known as RegenMed (Cayman) Ltd. (d/b/a inRegen)) (“ProKidney-KY”) was duly incorporated under the Companies Act (as amended) of the Cayman Islands (the “Cayman Islands Companies Act”) on December 21, 2015, as an exempted company. In 2020, ProKidney-KY’s name was changed from RegenMed (Cayman) Ltd. to ProKidney. ProKidney, LLC

(formerly known as Twin City Bio LLC) (“ProKidney-US”) changed its name from Twin City Bio LLC to ProKidney, LLC. ProKidney-US is a Delaware limited liability company formed on December 18, 2015. In January 2019, ProKidney Bermuda acquired all of the equity interests in ProKidney-KY and ProKidney-US.

ProKidney Bermuda acquired the equity interests in ProKidney-KY to develop its renal autologous cell therapy. ProKidney Bermuda acquired ProKidney-US to provide contractual development and manufacturing services to ProKidney-KY.

On August 5, 2021, PKLP was organized as a limited partnership under the Limited Partnerships Act, 1907 of Ireland (the “Irish LP Act”), and, as applicable, the Partnership Act 1890, of Ireland, with ProKidney Bermuda becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of PKLP. In September 2021, ProKidney Bermuda distributed its equity interests in ProKidney-KY and ProKidney-US
to PKLP with the effect that ProKidney-KY and ProKidney-US became direct wholly-owned subsidiaries of PKLP. ProKidney
Bermuda was dissolved in October of 2022.

References to “ProKidney” or the “Company” generally refer to PKLP after its reorganization and to ProKidney Corp. following the Closing.

Our Strategy

Our goal is to become a fully integrated biopharmaceutical company pioneering treatments for CKD. Key components of our business strategy include the following:

Kidney Disease Overview

CKD is highly prevalent in the United States and European Union. Based on available U.S. data from the 2018 National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey, we expect the aggregate CKD population in the United States and European Union to grow from approximately 70 million in 2020 to approximately 80 million in 2030 and approximately 93 million in 2040. The most common causes of CKD among adults are diabetes, hypertension, and glomerular disease, and in the pediatric population, CAKUT. In the United States, it is believed that approximately 3.2 million patients per year suffer from stage 3b or 4 CKD and 1.2 to 1.8 million of those patients could be eligible for treatment with REACT.

Our Approach: Working to Preserve Kidney Function through Autologous Cell Therapy

Autologous cell therapy refers to the prevention or treatment of human disease by administering a person’s own cells that have been selected, multiplied and formulated outside the body and subsequently injected into the body of the patient from whom the cells were derived. We believe that our technology has the potential to preserve kidney function by using a patient’s own SRC.

REACT is an autologous homologous cell admixture, which means it is made from expanded SRC obtained from each individual subject’s own kidney biopsy tissue.

Preparing REACT begins when a biopsy of the diseased kidney is sent to our laboratory where the kidney cells are expanded and SRC selected. We are able to identify the patient’s own healthy progenitor cells and formulate them into a personalized product. SRC are formulated into a cryopreserved product at a concentration of approximately 100 x 106 cells/mL and shipped frozen to the clinical site where they can be injected into the cortex of the damaged kidney of the patient. Due to one severe bleed that occurred during an early REACT injection procedure, we switched to the use of a noncutting needle design for the REACT procedure. Based on preclinical studies, when the manufactured REACT product is injected into the cortex of the diseased kidney, the product’s progenitor cells rapidly distribute throughout the kidney and integrate into the damaged nephrons and interstitium. To date, clinical studies suggest that treatment with REACT in patients with CKD caused by type 2 diabetes may positively impact kidney function by stabilizing eGFR or attenuating the rate of eGFR decline. Other improvements observed with preclinical and clinical REACT treatment include metabolic, as well as filtration benefits, stabilization and/or reduction in UACR, increased kidney cortical thickness, improved hemoglobin levels, and improvements in calcium phosphate and vitamin D3.

Mechanism of Action of REACT

Engraftment of SRC is believed to provide the molecular and mechanistic basis for activation of endogenous renal repair mechanisms that are still active in the chronically diseased kidney. Non-clinical studies in multiple animal models of CKD have demonstrated that SRC injected directly into the kidney cortex were capable of effecting a regenerative response in multiple locations of the nephron through direct engraftment or tissue replacement and through a putative paracrine mechanism involving the effect of secreted factors. In animal models of CKD, treatment with SRC preserved kidney function, reduced proteinuria and provided a significant survival benefit. Additionally, there is evidence from preclinical models suggesting that injected SRC may augment other important kidney functions related to bone and mineral metabolism and hematopoiesis. In animal models of CKD, SRC have been shown to minimize the development of osteoclastic bone resorption, which is characteristically due to secondary hyperparathyroidism in CKD, and improve cellularity in marrow related to red blood cell production.

Our Product Candidate

REACT is currently in Phase 3 development, as well as ongoing Phase 2 clinical trials, for the treatment of moderate to severe CKD caused by type 2 diabetes. These trials are planned to be conducted at approximately 150 clinical sites based in the United States, Europe, Asia and Latin America. To date, clinical studies in participants with CKD caused by type 2 diabetes suggest that treatment with REACT may delay or prevent renal replacement therapy (“RRT”) by stabilizing eGFR. Other potential improvements observed with REACT in earlier studies include stabilization in UACR, increased kidney cortical thickness, improvement in serum bicarbonate, and stabilization of hemoglobin levels. The potential benefits of REACT will be evaluated in the phase 3 program which includes two adequate and controlled clinical trials.

The ongoing clinical development program utilizes a percutaneous injection method into the kidney that is conducted using conscious sedation in an outpatient same-day procedure. The procedure appears to be generally well tolerated with the most commonly observed procedure related events including nausea, vomiting, fever, and hematuria with kidney biopsy. In the RMCL-002

trial, which used a different formulation of the REACT product and a different procedure from that presently used in our Phase 3 trials, one participant experienced serious adverse events that included scarring or fibrosis and a decrease in kidney function. A second participant experienced decreased kidney blood flow observed on contrast-enhanced computerized tomography (“CT”) imaging and a decrease in kidney function. Serious adverse events, including injection-related pain, kidney-related events such as hematoma, renal vascular events, eGFR decline and acute kidney injury, have also been reported. Other serious adverse events, including acute myocardial infarction, acute respiratory failure, end stage renal disease, and coronary artery disease have been reported and are generally associated with the co-morbidities of patients with type 2 diabetes.

Background and Unmet Need

Chronic Kidney Disease

CKD is characterized by progressive disease that, without therapeutic intervention, will worsen until the afflicted person dies or reaches end-stage renal disease (“ESRD”). CKD patients have progressive damage and loss of function in their kidneys, evidenced by decreased eGFR and / or increased excretion of urinary albumin, as observed through laboratory testing. The global adult prevalence of CKD is estimated to be 10% with ranges of 8-16% in various populations. CKD is often associated with considerable comorbidities, such as diabetes, and is often accompanied by adverse outcomes due to underlying disease states and/or risk factors such as cardiovascular disease, hypertension and diabetes, causing an increased risk of mortality. Ninety-seven percent of patients with moderate to severe CKD have asymptomatic disease, and this stage of CKD is associated with a two-to four-fold rise in cardiovascular disease risk, along with a significant increase in all-cause mortality. Only a small proportion of CKD patients progress to ESRD (i.e., Stage 5 disease), but the increasing life expectancy of humans has led to growing numbers of patients with chronic diseases and end-stage organ failure. Even with costly treatments, patients with ESRD experience substantial morbidity and mortality. To survive, ESRD patients require renal replacement therapy (RRT) with peritoneal dialysis, hemodialysis or kidney transplantation. Preventing or delaying progression of CKD, delaying the onset of medical complications and treating comorbidities are key strategies for CKD management. Approved therapies for patients with CKD have been shown to delay CKD progression in some patients. However, many patients continue to lose kidney function and progress to ESRD.

The major causes of CKD in adults are diabetes and hypertension. Nearly half of all CKD cases arise from diabetes, with or without hypertension. The incidence of CKD continues to increase and is primarily due to the increased worldwide incidence of type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome. Staging and grading of kidney function relies upon eGFR and urine measurement of albumin excretion (“albuminuria”). KDIGO 2012 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of Chronic Kidney Disease provided guidelines intended to aid general practitioners and nephrologists in the evaluation, classification, and management of CKD in both adults and children. As set forth below, Figure 1 categorizes the risk of ESRD from “low” to “very high” based on both eGFR measurements, ranging from >90 mL/min/1.73m2 to <30 mL/min/1.73m2, and albuminuria classifications ranging from <30 mg/g to >300 mg/g. Chronic kidney failure occurs when eGFR is < 15 mL/min/1.73m2 for 3 or more months, and is often treated by dialysis or kidney transplantation.

Summary of Classification Estimates for CKD

Treatment of patients with CKD focuses on treating comorbidities (such as diabetes and hypertension) and medical complications, reducing cardiovascular risk, slowing decline of kidney function and preparing for kidney failure or kidney replacement therapy. For many patients, CKD occurs as part of a complex comorbidity cluster including cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes.

Pharmacological therapy may include the administration of any or all of the following: angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and/or angiotensin receptor blockers, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, insulin and/or anti-diabetic agents for glycemic control and lipid lowering therapy.

When a patient reaches ESRD, RRT in the form of kidney dialysis or transplantation is generally required to prolong life. The vast majority of dialysis patients in the United States and certain other developed countries receive dialysis primarily in the form of hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis or home hemodialysis. Dialysis removes toxins that accumulate in the absence of normally functioning kidneys; dialysis also helps to restore fluid and electrolyte balance when kidneys fail. Hemodialysis has been associated with multiple, serious complications as well as interference with quality of life. Although kidney transplantation currently remains the most effective form of RRT for ESRD, there is a chronic shortage of organs. If a patient can secure a kidney for transplantation, long-term immunosuppressive therapy is required to prevent rejection. Use of immunosuppresants results in a higher incidence of infection and, over the long term, some types of cancer. And while xenotransplantation might be a promising alternative approach in the future to bridge the gap between the supply and demand of human organs, tissues, and cells, immunological barriers are limiting factors in clinical xenotransplantation at the current time.

While patients continue to lose kidney function while on existing therapies, the cost of CKD treatment is high and the rates of CKD and ESRD, along with the associated expenditures, are expected to continue to rise. A major source of healthcare expenditure in the United States, the annual Medicare spend on beneficiaries with CKD is approximately $86 billion. Medicare spend on beneficiaries with ESRD is approximately $52 billion, with Medicare Advantage comprising approximately $18 billion, with total annual cost per patient on dialysis exceeding $95,000.

Clinical Development

Our completed clinical trials and currently ongoing clinical trials of REACT are summarized below; the name of the product candidate tested in the trials was changed after completion of some of the trials from Neo-Kidney Augment (“NKA”) to REACT.

The summary below also includes interim results which are based on a preliminary analysis of then available data, the results, related findings and conclusions of which are subject to change following a more comprehensive review of the data related to the specific trial. In particular, we announced ad hoc interim results from our ongoing RMCL-002 Phase 2 clinical trial in November 2023. We submitted final results from our completed REGEN-003 Phase 2 clinical trial and REGEN-004 Phase 1

clinical trial to the FDA in late 2023. We have initiated enrollment of REGEN-006 Phase 3 clinical trial and the REGEN-016 Phase 3 clinical trial is expected to commence in 2024. Interim results from clinical trials that we may complete are not necessarily indicative of results from future data and are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as more patient data become available. Preliminary or topline results also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from any preliminary data that we may previously publish. As a result, interim and preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available.

CKD Caused by Diabetes

Phase 1 Clinical Development (TNG-CL010 and TNG-CL011)

TNG-CL010 was an open-label safety and delivery optimization study of REACT (formerly known as NKA) conducted in Sweden in subjects with CKD. TNG-CL010 commenced in April 2013 and completed in December 2014. TNG-CL011 was also an open-label safety and delivery optimization study of REACT in subjects with CKD caused by type 2 diabetes and CKD conducted in the United States. TNG-CL011 commenced with first subject enrolled in February 2014 and completed in December 2014.

The primary objective of these trials was to assess the safety and delivery of REACT when injected into one kidney. Six subjects from Sweden (TNG-CL010) and one from the United States with CKD caused by type 2 diabetes, ranging in age from 53-70 years, eGFR levels between 19-34 (average 25 +/- 2, Cystatin C) and iohexol clearance of 15-39 (average 26 +/- 3), were enrolled. One subject with CKD caused by type 2 diabetes was enrolled in TNG-CL011.

The results from the Phase 1 trials indicate that REACT was well tolerated when administered to the kidney, with no adverse events from REACT. When the decline of kidney function pre-and post- injection were compared, the subjects receiving REACT in this Phase 1 trial had an imputed delay in dialysis of approximately 1.5 years beyond the standard of care based on a reduced rate of decline in eGFR from pre-injection baseline. Cortical thickness increased in the injected kidney from an average of 14 mm at time of injection to approximately 16 mm after one year. Kidney function was preserved following the REACT injection by iohexol clearance and based on the subjects’ ACRs. Subjects with a baseline anemia (n = 3 of 7) showed improved hemoglobin levels after REACT injection, and the remaining subjects maintained normal levels during the study. Antihypertensive medication was reduced in three of six subjects during the first six months following injection with REACT.

The data from TNG-CL011 were accepted by FDA as part of a clinical data package submitted to progress to Phase 2.

Phase 2 Clinical Development (RMCL-001, RMCL-002, REGEN-003, and REGEN-007)

RMCL-001:

RMCL-001 is a Phase 2, open-label safety and efficacy study of REACT in subjects with CKD caused by type 2 diabetes. The study commenced in May 2016 and ended in May 2017.

The primary objective of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of a second REACT injection using a minimally invasive percutaneous procedure that was done under conscious sedation as a same-day outpatient procedure. A single subject with an eGFR of 14 ml/min/1.73m2 was enrolled from the Phase 1 study (TNG-CL011) described above. The second dose of REACT was manufactured from cryopreserved kidney cells obtained from the Phase 1 kidney biopsy. The subject was administered a dose of 3x106 cells/g-KWest. The subject’s eGFR increased to approximately 20 ml/min/1.73m2 for a period of eight months, after which the subject experienced a precipitous drop in kidney function and began hemodialysis. The study was terminated by the sponsor of the clinical trial after this subject went onto dialysis and resources were diverted to study RMCL-002.

RMCL-002:

RMCL-002 is a Phase 2, prospective, randomized, double-arm, deferred treatment, open-label, repeat dose, safety and efficacy study of REACT in subjects with type 2 diabetes and CKD. The first subject was enrolled in this study in February 2017, and all subjects have completed follow-up.

The primary objective of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of up to two REACT injections given six months apart (up to four weeks after target date) in patients with CKD caused by type 2 diabetes with eGFRs between 20 and 50 ml/min/1.73m2, with both doses delivered into the biopsied kidney using an outpatient, minimally invasive, percutaneous approach under conscious sedation completed in less than 90 minutes. Patients received two doses of REACT of 3x106 cells/g-KWest each.

Patients were randomized (1:1) to the active treatment group and the deferred treatment group (i.e., the control group) following kidney biopsy. Subjects in the active treatment group received their first REACT injection as soon as the REACT product was manufactured and shipped to the clinical site. After six months (up to four weeks after target date), a second injection was given, as appropriate. In contrast, subjects in the deferred treatment group underwent a 12-month period of observation after kidney biopsy. The deferred treatment group allowed assessment of the rate of change in kidney function and co-morbidities in a nonexposed group compared to the active treatment arm. During this time, they received contemporaneous, standard-of-care

therapy for CKD while undergoing follow-up evaluations every three months, similar to subjects in the active treatment group. After 12 months, subjects from the deferred treatment group received up to two REACT injections given six months apart (+/- four weeks of the target date), as appropriate. Consequently, the study design included a randomized control group receiving standard-of-care treatment for the first 12 months and a randomized, active treatment group receiving up to two REACT injections and follow-up evaluations during the same period of time.

The aggregate number of subjects enrolled in the Phase 2 clinical trial was 83. Upon withdrawal and/or replacement of 2 subjects, 81 subjects were enrolled as of December 2020, of which 41 subjects were enrolled into the active treatment group and 42 subjects were enrolled into the deferred treatment group.

We anticipate final results for safety and efficacy to be available in the first half of 2024. The rate of progression of kidney function for the active treatment group, assessed via pre-randomized serial measurements of eGFR over 24 months after the last REACT injection, will be compared to that of the deferred treatment group. In addition, each subject’s baseline rate of eGFR decline, derived from historical and clinical data, will be compared to the individual subject’s rate of eGFR decline through 24 months following the final REACT injection. The rate of progression of kidney function of subjects, if any, who received a single REACT injection may be compared against that of subjects who received two REACT injections. Patients were followed for 24 months after their last REACT injection in part 1 of the trial. An open label extension portion of the study (part 2) was added in February 2021 to follow all subjects for an additional 3 years. Visits will be conducted at 3-month intervals to give a total of 5 years (part 1 + part 2) of follow-up after the last REACT injection.

Updated interim data from the study were released in November 2023 and included data from the 83 patients enrolled. The interim dataset revealed a safety profile in line with previously reported data from earlier Phase 1 and Phase 2 trials, with tolerability similar to that of a routine kidney biopsy. Overall, the updated trial data demonstrated REACT’s potential for kidney function preservation in patients with advanced CKD caused by type 2 diabetes, with the most notable potential benefit shown in patients who had the highest risk of kidney failure (CKD Stage 4 with moderate to severe albuminuria).

We expect to provide final results for safety and efficacy of RMCL-002 Phase 2 study in the first half of 2024. Results from interim data may not be indicative of results from future data.

REGEN-003:

REGEN-003 is a completed Phase 2, prospective open-label, single-arm, safety and tolerability study of REACT in subjects with CKD caused by type 2 diabetes, specifically those with high-risk late Stage 4 DKD. This study enrolled its first patient in March 2018. The early results were published online in January 2023 in the Journal of Blood Purification in a manuscript entitled, “Renal Autologous Cell Therapy (REACT) in Type 2 Diabetes with Late Stage 4 Diabetes-Related Chronic Kidney Disease: Trial Design and Early Analysis” (DOI: doi.org/10.1159/000527582). Clinical study results were submitted to the FDA on September 8, 2023.

The primary objective of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of up to two REACT injections given six months apart (up to four weeks after target date) in patients with CKD caused by type 2 diabetes and with eGFRs between 14 and 20 ml/min/1.73m2 and delivered into the biopsied kidney using a minimally invasive percutaneous approach that can be delivered under conscious sedation in less than 90 minutes. Subjects have an eGFR of between 14—20 ml/min/1.73m2. Subjects receive up to two doses of REACT of 3x106 cells/g-KWest each.

This study enrolled a total of ten adults (5 men and 5 women). Following a percutaneous kidney biopsy and ex vivo expansion of SRC that form REACT, the REACT product was injected into the cortex of the biopsied kidney with CT image guidance. Nine participants received two doses of the REACT product at 6-month intervals; one participant received only one injection. A 6-month observation period pre-trial was required to establish a patient’s “own” baseline and rate of CKD progression. There were no cell product-related serious adverse events reported. Serious renal-linked adverse events related to the REACT procedure were reported in three participants, including acute kidney injury, CKD progression, renal arteriovenous fistula and hematomas, each of which required observation without transfusion or angiographic interventions. At the final analysis, median time to dialysis was 19.4 months (interquartile range 13.3-27.9). Two patients (20%) completed the study (24 months after the second injection) without advancing to RRT. One patient died due to complications related to COVID, and an additional subject died due to a myocardial infarction approximately 18 months after enrollment. The results from this study suggest that REACT has the potential to delay dialysis in high-risk Stage 4 and Stage 5 DKD patients.

REGEN-007:

REGEN-007 is an ongoing Phase 2, prospective, randomized, open-label, repeat dose, two cohort, safety and efficacy study of REACT in subjects with type 1 or 2 diabetes and CKD.

The primary objective of Cohort 1 is to assess the safety and efficacy of up to two REACT injections given three months apart (up to 60 days after target date) in patients with CKD caused by type 1 and 2 diabetes with eGFRs between 20 and 50

ml/min/1.73m2 and delivered into biopsied and non-biopsied contralateral kidneys using a minimally invasive percutaneous approach. Additionally, the primary objective of Cohort 2 is to administer a single REACT injection followed by monitoring and a potential administration of a second REACT injection delivered into the non-biopsied contralateral kidney triggered by a 20% decrease in eGFR and/or a 30% increase in urinary albumin-creatinine ratio (UACR) delivered within approximately 60 days of the trigger being met. In previous Phase 2 studies we injected REACT into the same kidney twice. Based on a generally favorable safety profile observed in previous studies, in REGEN-007 we are now proceeding with the injection of REACT into both kidneys. We expect the data generated by REGEN-007 will enable us to better understand the impact of REACT on kidney function from injections in both kidneys, which is the dosing regimen for our phase 3 study.

By injecting both kidneys, patients have maximal exposure to REACT cells, with the potential to impact a greater proportion of kidney mass. Further, the number of glomeruli (the filtering units of the kidney) that are amenable to regenerative therapy is effectively doubled when injecting both kidneys.

Subjects will receive up to two injections of REACT of 3x106 cells/g-KWest per dose. The study will enroll subjects between the ages of 30 and 80 with an eGFR >20 and ≤50 mL/min/1.73m2. Subjects will be randomized (1:1) before kidney biopsy into two cohorts. Cohort 1 will receive the two REACT injections three months apart. Cohort 2 will receive the first REACT injection, and a trigger, as described below, must be met to qualify for the second REACT injection more than three months after the first dose.

Each of the subjects in cohort 1 will receive the first REACT injection as soon as the REACT product is manufactured and shipped to the clinical site. After three months, subjects will receive a second injection, as appropriate. Subjects in cohort 2 will also receive one REACT injection as soon as the REACT product is manufactured and shipped to the clinical site. For cohort 2, a second REACT injection will only be administered if a subject meets one or more clinical surrogate marker criteria. The second REACT injection will be administered to subjects in cohort 2 no less than three months after the first injection, within 30 days (up to four weeks after target date) of meeting the re-dose trigger. The re-dose triggers include (1) a 30-day sustained decline in eGFR by at least 20% from baseline and (2) an increase in the baseline UACR of at least 30% greater than 30mg/gram, measured 30 days after the baseline measurement is taken. For all subjects who receive a second injection, the second injection will be administered in the non-biopsied contralateral kidney.

During this time, subjects in cohort 2 will receive contemporaneous, standard-of-care therapy for CKD while undergoing follow-up evaluations at one, 14 (up to 7 days after target date) and 28 days (up to 7 days after target date) following the first injection, and then at three months (up to 10 days after target date) following the first injection, similar to subjects in cohort 1. All subjects will continue with long-term follow-up visits at three month intervals for a period of 18 months following the last injection. In addition, each subject’s baseline rate of kidney decline, based on adequate historical, clinical data obtained 24 months prior to the first REACT injection, will serve as a comparator for monitoring the rate of progression of renal insufficiency over time. The primary efficacy endpoint of REGEN-007 is attenuation of the rate of kidney function decline as indicated by the change from pre-injection baseline value in total (acute + chronic) slope of eGFR over 18 months. The primary safety endpoint is treatment-emergent adverse events through 18 months following the last REACT injection. REGEN-007 is an unblinded study in which cohort 1 patients will receive the same treatment regimen as the patients in our Phase 3 program that are randomized to the active arms.

We believe that REGEN-007 may provide some insights regarding the clinical benefit that could be observed in our Phase 3 program.

We have completed enrollment in REGEN-007 with a total of 53 subjects. We anticipate reporting interim data from this study reflecting twelve months of follow-up from a limited number of Cohort 1 patients in mid 2024 and full twelve month data for Cohort 1 in the first half of 2025.

Phase 3 Clinical Development: PROACT 1 and PROACT 2 (REGEN-006 and REGEN-016):

We applied for RMAT designation for REACT, which was granted by the FDA on October 28, 2021. As contemplated by the RMAT designation and as directed by the FDA, we requested a comprehensive, multidisciplinary Type B meeting with the FDA to review the status of preclinical and clinical development and manufacturing of REACT and to discuss the planned clinical program intended to support approval of the product candidate. The FDA provided detailed written responses to our questions included in the meeting request, and the Type B meeting was held in March 2022. As a result of that meeting, we made modifications to the Phase 3 trial designs and endpoints, including the following:

We will continue to advance the U.S. clinical development program with the benefit of enhanced clarity as to the FDA’s expectations and requirements for a registrational program, including the design of the trials needed for approval, manufacturing assays, and comparability studies, as set forth below.

REGEN-016/PROACT 2:

REGEN-016 (PROACT 2) is a planned Phase 3, randomized, blinded, sham control arm, bi-lateral kidney dose, controlled efficacy study of REACT in subjects with Stages 3b and 4 CKD caused by type 2 diabetes (specifically eGFR between 20 ml and 44 ml min/1.73m2 with moderate to severe albuminuria (UACR between 300 and 5,000 mg/g)). This study will be conducted in clinical centers in Europe, Latin America, Asia-Pacific and some United States centers.

The primary objective of this study is to assess the efficacy of up to two REACT injections given three months apart and delivered into biopsied and non-biopsied contralateral kidneys using a minimally invasive percutaneous approach. Enrolled subjects will be stratified based upon stage of disease and standard of care (e.g., SGLT2 and/or MRA use) and then randomized (1:1) to the treatment group or the “masked” sham control group prior to kidney biopsy. The total planned enrollment is 600 subjects.

Subjects in the treatment group will receive two injections of REACT of 3x106 cells/g-KWest. The study will enroll subjects between the ages of 30 and 80 years of age with an eGFR>20 and<44 mL/min/1.73m2.

Each of the subjects in the treatment group will receive the first REACT injection in approximately 14 weeks following kidney biopsy. After three months, it is intended that a second injection will be given into the contralateral kidney. In contrast, subjects in the control group will receive two sham injections, the first of which will be administered 12 weeks following sham biopsy, and the second of which will be administered three months after the first sham injection. During this time, subjects in the control group will receive contemporaneous, standard-of-care therapy for CKD while undergoing follow-up evaluations at the same time intervals as subjects in the treatment group. All subjects will continue in the study until the global trial end date is announced and an end of study visit is completed.

The primary composite endpoint is the time from first injection to the earliest of:

A recent audit by the Company’s contracted Qualified Person (QP) to evaluate our readiness for release and distribution of REACT in the EU identified certain deficiencies in the documentation of the quality management systems to be addressed prior to release and distribution of product for EU clinical sites. Manufacturing is therefore paused while we optimize our capabilities to meet EU and global standards for our Phase 3 program and prepare for a transition to commercial manufacturing. No safety events have necessitated this pause. We expect PROACT 2 will commence enrollment in the second half of 2024.

REGEN-006/PROACT 1 trial:

REGEN-006 (PROACT 1) is an ongoing Phase 3, randomized, blinded, bi-lateral kidney dose, sham control arm, controlled efficacy study of REACT in subjects with CKD caused by type 2 diabetes. That study protocol is being amended to focus on a subset of patients with Stage 4 CKD (eGFR between 20 ml and 30 ml min/1.73m2) and late Stage 3b CKD (eGFR between 30 ml and 35 ml min/1.73m2) with accompanying albuminuria. This study will be conducted in clinical centers in the United States, Canada, Australia, Mexico, Taiwan and the United Kingdom.

In concert with the Company’s pause of manufacturing to optimize its capabilities to meet EU and global standards for its Phase 3 program and prepare for a transition to commercial manufacturing, and based on the interim data from RMCL-002 and feedback from payer and health technology assessment (HTA) experts, the Company is proactively modifying REGEN-006 to increase probability of success. The Company will modify the eGFR enrollment range from the current range of ≥20 to ≤ 50 ml/min/1.73m2 to a new range of ≥20 to ≤ 35 ml/min/1.73m2. This modification reflects a focus on patients at highest risk of kidney disease progression. These patients are also of particular interest to payers due to the significant cost burden associated with their medical care. Based on feedback from clinical sites, the Company also intends to incorporate additional administrative changes to improve operational efficiencies and clinical site engagement. No safety issues have required any of these protocol changes. The Company anticipates submitting protocol amendments for this study to regulatory agencies in early 2024 and anticipates resuming enrollment of subjects during the first half of 2024.

The primary objective of this study is to assess the efficacy of up to two REACT injections given three months apart and delivered into biopsied and non-biopsied contralateral kidneys using a minimally invasive percutaneous approach. The originally planned enrollment of 600 total subjects in this study will be increased to include the approximately 85 subjects already enrolled, for a total target enrollment of approximately 685 patients. Subjects in the treatment group will receive two injections of REACT of 3x106 cells/g-KWest.

The primary composite endpoint is the time from first injection to the earliest of:

Subjects will be randomized (1:1) to the treatment group and the “masked” sham control group prior to kidney biopsy.

Each of the subjects in the treatment group will receive the first REACT injection within about 14 weeks following kidney biopsy. After three months it is intended that a second dose be given into the contralateral kidney. In contrast, subjects in the control group will receive two sham injections, the first of which will be administered 12 weeks following sham biopsy, and the second of which will be administered three months after the first sham injection. During this time, subjects in the control (sham) group will receive contemporaneous, standard-of-care therapy for CKD while undergoing follow-up evaluations at one, 14 and 28 days (+7 days) following the first injection, and then at three months (+10 days) following the first injection, similar to subjects in the treatment group. All subjects will continue in the study until the global trial end date is announced and an end of study visit is completed.

Other Clinical Development Studies

REGEN-008

REGEN-008 is an ongoing Phase 3, prospective, open-label, observational master protocol study of REACT in subjects with diabetes and CKD who were previously enrolled and treated with REACT. There are two sub-studies under the REGEN-008 master protocol:

REGEN-008 sub-study 1 is a multi-center, prospective, non-interventional, long-term observational extension study of participants who were enrolled and dosed in previous interventional clinical studies with the fresh REACT formulation. Participants will be monitored for up to five years.

REGEN-008 sub-study 2 is intended to follow study participants previously treated with the cryopreserved formulation of REACT. Participants will be followed for up to an additional 5 years for this study (60 months) from completion of previous protocol End of Study Visit.

REGEN-015

Multi-dose study REGEN-015 was a planned Phase 1 open-label study of REACT in subjects with CKD caused by type 1 or type 2 diabetes. The intended purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety of supplemental REACT injections in participants who have previously received REACT treatment. The Company no longer feels that REGEN-015 adds value to the overall clinical development plan and has decided to no longer pursue this study. No patient received REACT and the study will be officially closed in 2024.

REGEN-004

REGEN-004 is a completed Phase 1, prospective, open-label, single-arm, safety, tolerability, and early efficacy study of REACT in subjects with CKD from CAKUT.

The primary objective of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of up to two REACT injections given six months (up to four weeks after target date) apart and delivered into the biopsied kidney using a minimally invasive percutaneous approach that can be delivered under conscious sedation in less than 90 minutes in patients with CKD with eGFRs between 14 and 50 ml/min/1.73m2 due to CAKUT. Five subjects were enrolled in this trial. Subjects received two doses of REACT of 3x106 cells/g-KWest.

All five subjects received their first injection, and four subjects received both injections. The trial concluded in January 2023 with the last patient, last visit. Small mean decreases from baseline in eGFR were noted at almost all time points during the study.

Results show that the estimated rate (standard error) of eGFR decline was -0.4 (2.28) mL/min/1.73 m2 per year during the Pre-Injection Period, -2.1 (1.35) mL/min/1.73 m2 per year during the Post-Second Injection Period, and -1.4 (0.93) mL/min/1.73 m2 per year during the Post-Injection Period.

Final results of this study were reported to the FDA in December 2023. The Company is not pursuing this indication further at this time.

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapid technological advancement, significant competition, and an emphasis on intellectual property. We face potential competition from many different sources, including major and specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, including developers of tubular and glomerular cell drug modulators, e.g., SGLT2 inhibitors, antifibrosis medications, e.g., Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists (“MRAs”), glucose-dependent insulin release stimulators, e.g., GLP-1 agonists, induced pluripotent cells, other autologous mesenchymal stem cells and mechanical renal assist devices such as implantable and wearable renal dialysis machines, and advances in peritoneal dialysis and home dialysis. Cell-based clinical trials by other companies are underway globally with umbilical, adipose and bone marrow derived mesenchymal stem cells for CKD. Early-phase human induced pluripotent stem cell therapies for kidney diseases are ongoing in Japan.

Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with current therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. We believe that the key competitive factors affecting the success of any of our product candidates will include efficacy, safety profile, dosing, cost, effectiveness of promotional support and intellectual property protection. With respect specifically to REACT, we expect the key competitive factors affecting its success, if approved, will include the intended patient population, the relative convenience of dosing and administration, and efficacy.

Many other companies working on medications for controlling CKD, either alone or with their collaboration partners, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, pre-clinical testing, clinical trials, manufacturing, and marketing than do we. We believe that our principal competitors include developers of SGLT2 inhibitors, including canagliflozin (marketed as Invokana® by companies including Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.), dapagliflozin (marketed under the brand names Farxiga® and Forxiga® by companies including AstraZeneca plc and Bristol-Myers Squibb Company), and empagliflozin (marketed as Jardiance® by companies including Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly and Company), and MRAs, which are small-molecule therapies recently approved to lower risks of CKD progression, notably finerenone (marketed as Kerendia® by companies including Bayer AG). Most recently, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists, approved for type 2 diabetes and obesity, have been associated with lowering all-cause mortality among patients with type 2 diabetes, advanced-stage CKD and ESRD with strong support from the industry associations, including semaglutide (marketed under the brand names Ozempic®, Rybelsus® and Wegovy® by Novo Nordisk) and tirzepatide (marketed under the brand name Mounjaro® by Eli Lilly and Company). Future collaborations, mergers and acquisitions may result in further resource concentration among a smaller number of competitors.

Our commercial potential could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market or make our development more complicated. These competitors may also vie for a similar pool of qualified scientific and management talent, sites and patient populations for clinical trials, as well as for technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

Supply and Manufacturing

We believe that over the last 20 years we have developed our manufacturing technology for chemistry, manufacturing, and controls (“CMC”). In doing so, we have established a considerable intellectual property estate, combined with extensive manufacturing know-how, to enable us to manufacture REACT with consistent quality.

With support from high level manufacturing and regulatory expertise, our internal manufacturing capabilities have enabled us to progress rapidly through our clinical trials. We believe that our current manufacturing capacities enable us to provide sufficient quantities of clinical trial material to supply our clinical trials. As we continue to develop our product candidates, we may need to expand our manufacturing capacities. The manufacturing facilities located in Winston-Salem, North Carolina and the quality systems are intended to be compliant with global quality standards. It typically takes approximately 12 weeks to produce the clinical REACT products. As of the date hereof, our manufacturing team, facilities, and bioprocess capacity have produced over 200 cell therapies.

A recent audit by the Company’s contracted Qualified Person (QP) to evaluate our readiness for release and distribution of REACT in the EU identified certain deficiencies in the documentation of the quality management systems to be addressed prior to

release and distribution of product for EU clinical sites. Manufacturing is therefore paused while we optimize our capabilities to meet EU and global standards for our Phase 3 program and prepare for a transition to commercial manufacturing. No safety events have necessitated this pause.

Our bioprocesses have been reviewed by the FDA and EMA and validation activities are ongoing in anticipation of being commercial-ready for the potential launch of REACT. We plan to expand our manufacturing capacity, as required, to meet the increase in demand.

Our commercial strategy focuses on scaling up to meet the projected market for REACT if we obtain the necessary regulatory approvals.

We intend to improve bioprocess development to further reduce manufacturing costs of the commercial REACT product, assuming receipt of necessary regulatory approvals. Culture media represents the highest cost in REACT processing, and we are exploring reduced culture media usage via bioprocess and automation improvements. Further, our final commercial REACT product is planned to be a cryopreserved formulation, which we expect will reduce manufacturing costs compared to our fresh REACT formulation. We expect to leverage bulk purchasing to actively negotiate pricing of materials to further drive cost reductions. However, there can be no assurance that the manufacturing costs for our Phase 3 trials when we manufacture REACT at commercial scale will actually be lower than for our recently completed Phase 2 RMCL-002 study. A number of factors may contribute to an inability to achieve these cost reductions, including any failures to achieve the automation efficiencies that we anticipate, cost overruns or inefficiencies in the supply chain and any failure to improve the formulation or bioprocessing of REACT in a manner that results in lower costs.

Intellectual Property

Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our product candidates, technology and know-how, to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of others and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. Our policy is to seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, pursuing and obtaining patent protection in the United States and in jurisdictions outside of the United States related to our proprietary technology, inventions, improvements, and product candidates that are important to the development and implementation of our business. For example, we have or are pursuing patents covering the composition of matter for each of our product candidates and we generally pursue patent protection covering methods-of-use for each clinical trial. We may also rely on trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovation and potential in-licensing opportunities to develop and maintain our proprietary position. Additionally, we expect to benefit, where appropriate, from statutory frameworks in the United States, Europe and other countries that provide a period of clinical data exclusivity to compensate for the time required for regulatory approval of our products.

We continually assess and refine our intellectual property strategy as we develop new technologies and product candidates. We plan to file additional patent applications based on our intellectual property strategies where appropriate, including where we seek to adapt to competition or to improve business opportunities. Further, we plan to file patent applications, as we consider appropriate under the circumstances, to protect new technologies that we develop.

To cover our proprietary technologies, proprietary cell-based REACT product and related methods, such as methods of use, we have filed patent applications representing 19 patent families. As of December 31, 2023, our patent estate, which is solely owned, included 317 total issued patents or pending patent applications with nine issued U.S. patents, ten pending U.S. non-provisional patent applications, five pending U.S. provisional patent applications, two pending Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) applications, 172 issued foreign patents and 119 pending foreign patent applications in various foreign jurisdictions.

Specifically, our patent family with claims directed to cells formulated in REACT, implantable constructs, and methods of using the same to, for example, improve kidney function or treat kidney disease, includes 34 issued patents and eight pending patent applications. Patents in this family have been issued in nine jurisdictions, including the United States (three issued patents), Europe (two issued patents, each separately validated in seven countries), China, Japan, and South Korea. Issued patents and any further patents that may be issued from this family’s eight pending applications are expected to expire in 2029 absent any patent term adjustments or extensions.

We also own two patent families directed to our REACT formulations and methods of preparing the formulations. Across these families, we have 16 issued patents in multiple jurisdictions, including the United States, China, Japan, South Korea, and Canada. We also have five patent applications that are pending in multiple jurisdictions, including Europe, Canada, Mexico, and Australia. Patents across these two patent families, including any patents that may be issued from the pending applications, are expected to expire between 2031 and 2038, depending upon their respective filing dates and absent any patent term adjustments or extensions.

Additionally, we own two patent families with claims directed to quality control methods for ensuring that renal cells for formulation in REACT, prepared by our proprietary methods, have phenotypic and functional profiles indicative of therapeutic

activity. Within the first patent family, we have 61 issued patents in various jurisdictions, including the United States (two issued patents), Europe (two issued patents, one of which has been validated in 21 countries and the other has been validated in 20 countries), China (two issued patents), Japan (two issued patents), South Korea (two issued patents), Hong Kong (two issued patents), Australia (two issued patents), and New Zealand (two issued patents). We also have ten patent applications in this family that are pending in multiple jurisdictions, including the United States, Europe, Australia, China, and South Korea. Issued patents, and any further patents that may be issued from this family’s ten pending applications, are expected to expire in 2033 absent any patent term adjustments or extensions. Within our second patent family we have 16 patent applications pending in multiple jurisdictions including the United States, Europe, Japan, China, and Canada. Any patents that issue from these applications are expected to expire in 2041 absent any patent term adjustments or extensions.

We further own three patent families directed to methods of improving kidney function and/or in treating kidney disease, e.g., DKD or kidney disease resulting from a congenital anomaly. Across these families, we have three issued patents, including one U.S. patent and 29 pending patent applications filed in 15 jurisdictions, including the United States, Europe, Hong Kong, China, Korea, Japan, Australia, Brazil, Mexico, Israel, Canada, and Mexico. Our issued U.S. patent is expected to expire in 2037 absent any patent term adjustments or extensions. Patents across all three patent families, if issued, are expected to expire between 2036 and 2042, depending upon their respective filing dates and absent any patent term adjustments or extensions.

In addition, we plan to file additional applications on aspects of our innovations that may have patent terms that extend beyond these dates.

The term of individual patents depends upon the laws of the countries in which they are obtained. In the countries in which we currently file, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest date of filing of a non-provisional patent application, which serves as a priority application. However, the term of a U.S. patent may be extended to compensate for the time required to obtain regulatory approval to sell a medicine (a patent term extension) or by delays encountered during patent prosecution that are caused by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) (referred to as patent term adjustment). For example, the Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent term extension for FDA-approved medicines of up to five years beyond the expiration of the patent. The length of the patent term extension is related to the length of time the medicine is under regulatory review and diligence during the review process. Patent term extensions cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only one patent covering an approved medicine or its method of use may be extended. A similar kind of patent extension, referred to as a Supplementary Protection Certificate, is available in Europe. Legal frameworks are also available in certain other jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent. We currently intend to seek patent term extensions on any of our issued patents in any jurisdiction where we have a qualifying patent and the extension is available; however there is no guarantee that the applicable regulatory authorities, including the FDA in the United States, will agree with our assessment of whether such extensions should be granted, and even if granted, the length of such extensions. Further, even if our patent is extended, the patent, including the extended portion of the patent, may be held invalid or unenforceable by a court of final jurisdiction in the United States or a foreign country.

As with other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, our ability to obtain and maintain a proprietary position on our product candidates and technologies will depend on our success in obtaining effective patent claims on these pending patents and enforcing those claims if granted. However, our pending patent applications, and any patent applications that we may in the future file or license from third parties, may not result in the issuance of patents. We also cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be allowed or enforced in our patents. Furthermore, our competitors may be able to independently develop and commercialize products with similar mechanisms of action and duplicate our methods of treatments or strategies without infringing our patents. Because of the extensive time required for clinical development and regulatory review of a therapeutic product we may develop, it is possible that, before any of our products can be commercialized, any related patent may expire or remain in force for only a short period following commercialization, thereby reducing any advantage of any such patent. Moreover, even our issued patents do not guarantee us the right to practice our technology in relation to the commercialization of our clinical candidates. The area of patent and other intellectual property rights in pharmaceuticals is an evolving one with many risks and uncertainties, and third parties may have blocking patents that could be used to prevent us from commercializing our clinical candidates.

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. Our ability to obtain and maintain our proprietary position for our product candidates and technology will depend on our success in enforcing the claims that have been granted or may grant. However, any of our patents, including patents that we may rely on to protect our market for approved therapeutics, may be held invalid or unenforceable by a court of final jurisdiction. Alternatively, we may decide that it is in our interest to settle a litigation in a manner that affects the term or enforceability of our patent. Changes in either the patent laws or in interpretations of patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish our ability to protect our inventions and enforce our intellectual property rights. Accordingly, we cannot predict the breadth or enforceability of claims that have been or may be granted in our patents or in third-party patents.

Trade secrets

In addition to patents, we may rely upon unpatented trade secrets and know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect our proprietary information, in part, using confidentiality agreements with our commercial partners, collaborators, employees, and consultants, and invention assignment agreements with our employees. These agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information and, in the case of the invention assignment agreements, to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed through a relationship with a third party. These agreements may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our commercial partners, collaborators, employees, and consultants use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions.

Government regulation

In the United States, biological products, including cell-based regenerative therapy products, are subject to regulation under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the “FD&C Act”), the Public Health Service Act (the “PHS Act”) and other federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations. Both the FD&C Act and the PHS Act and their corresponding regulations govern, among other things, the research, development, clinical trial, testing, manufacturing, safety, efficacy, labeling, packaging, storage, record keeping, distribution, reporting, advertising and other promotional practices involving biological products. Each clinical trial protocol for a cell-based therapy product must be reviewed by the FDA. FDA approval must be obtained before the marketing of any biological product. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources and we may not be able to obtain the required regulatory approvals.

Ethical, social and legal concerns about gene or cell-based therapies, genetic testing and genetic research could result in additional laws and regulations restricting or prohibiting the processes we may use. Federal and state legislatures, agencies, congressional committees and foreign governments have expressed interest in further regulating biotechnology. More restrictive laws and regulations or interpretations of existing laws or regulations, or claims that our product candidates are unsafe or pose a hazard, could prevent us from commercializing any products. New government requirements may be established that could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our product candidates under development. It is impossible to predict whether legislative changes will be enacted, regulations, policies or guidance changed, or interpretations by agencies or courts changed, or what the impact of such changes, if any, may be.

U.S. biological products development process

The process required by the FDA before a biological product may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

Preclinical Testing

Before testing any biological product candidate, including a cell-based regenerative therapy product, in humans, the product candidate enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical tests, also referred to as nonclinical studies, include laboratory evaluations of a product candidate’s biological characteristics, chemistry, toxicity, stability and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess the potential safety and activity of the product candidate. The sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical studies, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational product to humans and must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. The Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2023, signed into law on December 29, 2022, (P.L. 117-328) amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the “FDCA”) and the Public Health Service Act to specify that nonclinical testing for drugs and biologics may, but is not required to, include in vivo animal testing. According to the amended language, a sponsor may fulfill nonclinical testing requirements by completing various in vitro assays (e.g., cell-based assays, organ chips, or microphysiological systems), in silico studies (i.e., computer modeling), other human or nonhuman biology-based tests (e.g., bioprinting), or in vivo animal tests.

The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements including GLP. Some long-term preclinical testing, such as animal tests of reproductive adverse events and carcinogenicity, may continue after an IND for an investigational drug candidate is submitted to the FDA and human clinical trials have been initiated.

Human clinical trials in support of a BLA

Clinical trials involve the administration of the product candidate to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators and in accordance with GCP requirements and protocols detailing the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring the safety and effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Study subjects must sign an informed consent form before participating in a clinical trial. There are also requirements governing the reporting of on-going clinical trials and clinical trial results to public registries.

An IND provides an exemption from the FD&C Act that allows an unapproved product candidate to be shipped in interstate commerce for use in an investigational clinical trial and is also a request for FDA authorization to administer such investigational product to humans. Such authorization must be secured prior to interstate shipment and administration of any biologic product candidate that is not the subject of an approved BLA. In support of a request for an IND, an applicant must submit a protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. In addition, the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and plans for clinical trials, among other things, must be submitted to the FDA as part of an IND. The FDA requires a 30-day waiting period after the filing of each IND before clinical trials may begin. This waiting period is designed to allow the FDA to review the IND to determine whether human research subjects will be exposed to unreasonable health risks. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA issues a notice expressly authorizing the proposed trial to proceed or raises concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places the clinical trial on a clinical hold. If FDA raises concerns or places the trial on clinical hold, the IND sponsor and the agency must resolve any outstanding concerns before the proposed trials can begin.

As a result, submission of an IND may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence.

Following commencement of a clinical trial, the FDA may also place a clinical hold or partial clinical hold on that trial. A clinical hold is an order issued by the FDA to the sponsor to delay a proposed clinical investigation or to suspend an ongoing investigation. A partial clinical hold is a delay or suspension of only part of the clinical work requested under the IND. No more than 30 days after imposition of a clinical hold or partial clinical hold, the FDA will provide the sponsor a written explanation of the basis for the hold. Following issuance of a clinical hold or partial clinical hold, an investigation may only resume after the FDA has notified the sponsor that the investigation may proceed.

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

An IRB or IEC representing each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that institution, and the IRB or IEC must conduct continuing review and reapprove the study at least annually. The IRB or IEC must review and approve, among other things, the study protocol and informed consent information to be provided to study subjects. An IRB or IEC must operate in compliance with FDA regulations. An IRB or IEC can suspend or

terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution, or an institution it represents, if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the product candidate has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

Some trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the trial sponsor, known as a Data Safety Monitoring Board (“DSMB”). This group provides authorization as to whether or not a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access that only the group maintains to available data from the study.

Information about certain clinical trials, including details of the protocol and eventually study results, also must be submitted within specific timeframes to the National Institutes of Health for public dissemination on the ClinicalTrials.gov data registry. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators and other aspects of the clinical trial is made public as part of the registration of the clinical trial. Sponsors are also obligated to disclose the results of their clinical trials after completion. Disclosure of the results of these trials can be delayed in some cases for up to two years after the date of completion of the trial. Failure to timely register a covered clinical study or to submit study results as provided for in the law can give rise to civil monetary penalties and also prevent the non-compliant party from receiving future grant funds from the federal government. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (“DHHS”) Final Rule and the National Institutes of Health’s (“NIH’s”) corresponding policy on ClinicalTrials.gov registration and reporting requirements became effective in 2017, and both NIH and FDA have brought enforcement actions against non-compliant clinical trial sponsors.

Clinical trials typically are conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined:

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

In the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2023, Congress amended the FDCA to require sponsors of a Phase 3 clinical trial, or other “pivotal study” of a new drug or biologic to support marketing authorization, to submit a diversity action plan for such clinical trial. The action plan must include the sponsor’s diversity goals for enrollment, as well as a rationale for the goals and a description of how the sponsor will meet them. A sponsor must submit a diversity action plan to FDA by the time the sponsor submits the trial protocol to the agency for review. The FDA may grant a waiver for some or all of the requirements for a diversity action plan. It is unknown at this time how the diversity action plan may affect Phase 3 trial planning and timing or what specific information FDA will expect in such plans, but if FDA objects to a sponsor’s diversity action plan and requires the sponsor to amend the plan or take other actions, it may delay trial initiation.

During all phases of clinical development, regulatory agencies require extensive monitoring and auditing of all clinical activities, clinical data, and clinical trial investigators. Annual progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted to the FDA. Written IND safety reports must be promptly submitted to the FDA, the responsible IRBs and the investigators for serious and unexpected adverse events, any findings from other studies, tests in laboratory animals or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human subjects, or any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The sponsor must submit an IND safety report within 15 calendar days after the sponsor determines that the information qualifies for reporting. The sponsor also must notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction within seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of such information. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all.

Human cell-based products administered directly into kidney tissue are a new category of therapeutics. Because this is a relatively new and expanding area of novel therapeutic interventions, there can be no assurance as to the length of the study period, the number of patients the FDA will require to be enrolled in the studies in order to establish the safety, purity and potency of human cell-based therapy products, or that the data generated in these studies will be acceptable to the FDA to support marketing approval.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and also must develop additional information about the physical characteristics of the biological product as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. To help reduce the risk of the introduction of adventitious agents with use of biological products, the PHS Act emphasizes the importance of manufacturing control for products whose attributes cannot be precisely defined. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, the sponsor must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, potency and purity of the final biological product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the biological product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

U.S. review and approval processes

After the completion of clinical trials of a biological product candidate, FDA approval of a BLA must be obtained before commercial marketing of the biological product. The BLA must include results of product development, laboratory and animal studies, human studies, information on the manufacture and composition of the product, proposed labeling and other relevant information. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety, purity, potency and efficacy of the investigational product for its proposed indication or indications to the satisfaction of the FDA. The testing and approval processes require substantial time and effort and there can be no assurance that the FDA will accept the BLA for filing and, even if filed, that any approval will be granted on a timely basis, if at all.

Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, as amended (the “PDUFA”), each BLA must be accompanied by a significant user fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. PDUFA also imposes an annual program fee for registered biologic product manufacturers. 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.

Within 60 days following submission of the application, the FDA reviews a BLA submitted to determine if it is substantially complete before the FDA accepts it for filing. The FDA may refuse to file any BLA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission and may request additional information. In this event, the BLA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the BLA. The FDA reviews the BLA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe, pure, potent and effective for its proposed indication or indications and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP to ensure the continued safety, purity and potency of such product.

Under the performance goals and policies implemented by the FDA under PDUFA, for original BLAs, the FDA targets 10 months from the filing date in which to complete its initial review of a standard application and respond to the applicant, and six months from the filing date for an application with priority review. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates, and the review process is often significantly extended due to FDA requests for additional information or clarification. The review process and the PDUFA goal date may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider new information or in the case of a clarification provided by the applicant to address an outstanding deficiency identified by the FDA following the original submission.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA typically will inspect the facilities at which the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. For a cell-based therapy product, the FDA also will not approve the product if the manufacturer is not in compliance with the cGTPs. These are FDA regulations that govern the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for, the manufacture of human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products (“HCT/ Ps”), which are human cells or tissue intended for implantation, transplant, infusion, or transfer into a human recipient. The primary intent of the cGTP requirements is to ensure that cell and tissue-based products are manufactured in a manner designed to prevent the introduction, transmission and spread of communicable disease. FDA regulations also require tissue establishments to register and list their HCT/Ps with the FDA and, when applicable, to evaluate donors through appropriate screening and testing. Additionally, before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure that the clinical trials were conducted in compliance with IND study requirements and GCP requirements. To assure cGMP, cGTP and GCP compliance, an applicant must incur significant expenditure of time, money and effort in the areas of training, record keeping, production and quality control.

Additionally, the FDA may refer any BLA, including applications for novel biologic candidates which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy, to an advisory committee. Typically, an advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations when making final decisions on approval. The FDA likely will re-analyze the clinical trial data, which could result in extensive discussions between the FDA and the applicant during the review process. The FDA also may require submission of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”) if it determines that a REMS is

necessary to ensure that the benefits of the medicine outweigh its risks and to assure the safe use of the medicine or biological product. The REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans, assessment plans and/or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries or other risk minimization tools. The FDA determines the requirement for a REMS, as well as the specific REMS provisions, on a case-by-case basis. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the BLA must submit a proposed REMS. The FDA will not approve a BLA without a REMS, if required.

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

The FDA reviews a BLA to determine, among other things whether the product is safe, pure and potent and the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packed or held meets standards designed to assure the product’s continued safety, purity and potency. The approval process is lengthy and often difficult, and the FDA may refuse to approve a BLA if the applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied or may require additional clinical or other data and information. On the basis of the FDA’s evaluation of the BLA and accompanying information, including the results of the inspection of the manufacturing facilities, the FDA may issue either an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter (“CRL”). An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A CRL indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete, and the application will not be approved in its present form. A CRL generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing or information in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. The CRL may require additional clinical or other data, additional pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial(s) and/or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, nonclinical studies or manufacturing. If a CRL is issued, the applicant may choose to either resubmit the BLA addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application. If and when those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the BLA, the FDA will issue an approval letter. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in response to an issued CRL in either two or six months depending on the type of information included. Even with the submission of this additional information, however, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

If a product receives regulatory approval from the FDA, the approval is limited to the conditions of use (e.g., patient population, indication) described in the application. Further, depending on the specific risk(s) to be addressed, the FDA may require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, require that post-approval trials, including Phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further assess a product’s safety after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution and use restrictions or other risk management mechanisms under a REMS, which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-marketing trials or surveillance programs. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

Fast Track, RMAT and Priority Review Designations

The FDA has various programs, including Fast Track designation, RMAT designation and priority review, that are intended to expedite or simplify the process for the development or FDA review of medicines and biologics that are intended for the treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions. These programs do not change the standards for approval but may help expedite the development or approval process.

To be eligible for fast-track designation, the FDA must determine, based on the request of a sponsor, that a new medicine or biological product is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and demonstrates the potential to address an unmet medical need by providing a therapy where none exists or a therapy that may be potentially superior to existing therapy based on efficacy or safety factors. Fast track designation provides opportunities for more frequent interactions with the FDA review team to expedite development and review of the product. The FDA may also review sections of the NDA or BLA for a fast track product on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor and the FDA agree on a schedule for the submission of the application sections and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA or BLA. In

addition, fast track designation may be withdrawn by the sponsor or rescinded by the FDA if the designation is no longer supported by data emerging from the clinical trial process.

As part of the 21st Century Cures Act (the “Cures Act”), enacted in December 2016, Congress amended the FD&C Act to facilitate an efficient development program for, and expedite review of regenerative medicine advanced therapies, or RMATs, which include cell and gene therapies, therapeutic tissue engineered products, human cell and tissue products, and combination products using any such therapies or products. REACT has received RMAT designation from the FDA. RMAT designation does not include HCT/Ps regulated solely under section 361 of the PHS Act and 21 Code of Federal Regulations Part 1271. This program is intended to facilitate efficient development and expedite review of regenerative medicine therapies that are intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. A sponsor may request that FDA designate a medicine as a RMAT concurrently with or at any time after submission of an IND. The FDA has 60 calendar days to determine whether the medicine meets the criteria, including whether there is preliminary clinical evidence indicating that the medicine has the potential to address unmet medical needs for a serious or life- threatening disease or condition. A BLA for a regenerative medicine therapy that has received RMAT designation may be eligible for priority review or accelerated approval through use of surrogate or intermediate endpoints reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit, or reliance upon data obtained from a meaningful number of sites. Benefits of RMAT designation also include early interactions with FDA to discuss any potential surrogate or intermediate endpoint to be used to support accelerated approval. A regenerative medicine therapy with RMAT designation that is granted accelerated approval and is subject to post-approval requirements may fulfill such requirements through the submission of clinical evidence from clinical trials, patient registries, or other sources of real-world evidence, such as electronic health records; the collection of larger confirmatory data sets; or post-approval monitoring of all patients treated with such therapy prior to its approval.

Finally, the FDA may designate a product for priority review if it is a medicine or biologic that treats a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. The FDA determines at the time that the marketing application is submitted, on a case-by-case basis, whether the proposed medicine represents a significant improvement in treatment, prevention or diagnosis of disease when compared with other available therapies. Significant improvement may be illustrated by evidence of increased effectiveness in the treatment of a condition, elimination or substantial reduction of a treatment-limiting reaction, documented enhancement of patient compliance that may lead to improvement in serious outcomes, or evidence of safety and effectiveness in a new subpopulation. A priority review designation is intended to direct overall attention and resources to the evaluation of such applications, and to shorten the FDA’s goal for taking action on a marketing application from 10 months to six months for an original BLA or for a New Molecular Entity NDA from the date of filing.

Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. Furthermore, fast track designation, RMAT therapy designation and priority review do not change the standards for approval and may not ultimately expedite the development or approval process.

Accelerated approval pathway

In addition, products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may receive accelerated approval from the FDA and may be approved on the basis of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials establishing that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA may also grant accelerated approval for such a medicine or biologic when the product has an effect on an intermediate clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality (“IMM”), and that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on IMM or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a medicine receiving accelerated approval perform post- marketing clinical trials to verify and describe the predicted effect on IMM or other clinical endpoint, and the product may be subject to expedited withdrawal procedures. Drugs and biologics granted accelerated approval must meet the same statutory standards for safety and effectiveness as those granted traditional approval.

For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign, or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. Surrogate endpoints can often be measured more easily or more rapidly than clinical endpoints. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a measurement of a therapeutic effect that is considered reasonably likely to predict the clinical benefit of a medicine, such as an effect on IMM. The FDA has limited experience with accelerated approvals based on intermediate clinical endpoints but has indicated that such endpoints generally may support accelerated approval when the therapeutic effect measured by the endpoint is not itself a clinical benefit and basis for traditional approval, if there is a basis for concluding that the therapeutic effect is reasonably likely to predict the ultimate long-term clinical benefit of a medicine.

The accelerated approval pathway is most often used in settings in which the course of a disease is long and an extended period of time is required to measure the intended clinical benefit of a medicine, even if the effect on the surrogate or intermediate

clinical endpoint occurs rapidly. For example, accelerated approval has been used extensively in the development and approval of medicines for treatment of a variety of cancers in which the goal of therapy is generally to improve survival or decrease morbidity and the duration of the typical disease course requires lengthy and sometimes large clinical trials to demonstrate a clinical or survival benefit.

The accelerated approval pathway is usually contingent on a sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the medicine’s clinical benefit. As a result, a product candidate approved on this basis is subject to rigorous post-marketing compliance requirements, including the completion of Phase 4 or post-approval clinical trials to confirm the effect on the clinical endpoint. Failure to conduct required post-approval studies, or to confirm the predicted clinical benefit of the product during post-marketing studies, would allow the FDA to withdraw approval of the medicine. As part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2023, Congress provided FDA additional statutory authority to mitigate potential risks to patients from continued marketing of ineffective drugs previously granted accelerated approval. Under the act’s amendments to the FDCA, FDA may require the sponsor of a product granted accelerated approval to have a confirmatory trial underway prior to approval. The sponsor must also submit progress reports on a confirmatory trial every six months until the trial is complete, and such reports are published on FDA’s website. The amendments also give FDA the option of using expedited procedures to withdraw product approval if the sponsor’s confirmatory trial fails to verify the claimed clinical benefits of the product.

All promotional materials for product candidates being considered and approved under the accelerated approval program are subject to prior review by the FDA.

Post-approval requirements

Maintaining substantial compliance with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Following approval of a new product, the manufacturer and the approved product are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, monitoring and recordkeeping activities, reporting of adverse experiences with the product, product sampling and distribution restrictions, complying with promotion and advertising requirements.

FDA regulations require that products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with cGMP. The cGMP regulations include requirements relating to organization of personnel, buildings and facilities, equipment, control of components and product containers and closures, production and process controls, packaging and labeling controls, holding and distribution, laboratory controls, records and reports and returned or salvaged products. We must comply with applicable requirements in the cGMP and cGTP regulations, including quality control and quality assurance and maintenance of records and documentation. Entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved biologics and HCT/Ps are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, as well as applicable foreign counterparts, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by such governmental authorities for compliance with cGMP, cGTP and other laws. Accordingly, we must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. Future inspections by governmental authorities may identify compliance issues at our facilities that may disrupt production or distribution or require substantial resources to correct. In addition, the discovery of conditions that violate these rules, including failure to conform to cGMP or cGTP, could result in enforcement actions, and the discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer or holder of an approved BLA, including voluntary recall and regulatory sanctions as described below.

Other post-approval requirements applicable to biological products, include reporting of cGMP deviations that may affect the identity, potency, purity and overall safety of a distributed product, record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse effects, reporting updated safety and efficacy information, and complying with electronic record and signature requirements. After a BLA is approved, the product also may be subject to official lot release. As part of the manufacturing process, the manufacturer is required to perform certain tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. If the product is subject to official release by the FDA, the manufacturer submits samples of each lot of product to the FDA together with a release protocol showing a summary of the history of manufacture of the lot and the results of all of the manufacturer’s tests performed on the lot. The FDA also may perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of some products, such as viral vaccines, before releasing the lots for distribution by the manufacturer. In addition, the FDA conducts laboratory research related to the regulatory standards on the safety, purity, potency, and effectiveness of biological products.

We also must comply with the FDA’s advertising and promotion requirements, such as those related to direct-to-consumer advertising, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the internet, as well as the prohibition on promoting products for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the product’s approved labeling (known as “off-label use”). Although physicians may prescribe legally available products for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such uses. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability.

If there are any modifications to the product, including changes in indications, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new BLA or a BLA supplement, which may require the applicant to develop additional data or conduct additional pre-clinical studies and clinical trials. The FDA may also place other conditions on approvals including the requirement for a REMS to assure the safe use of the product. A REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription or dispensing of products. Product approvals may be withdrawn for non-compliance with regulatory standards or if problems occur following initial marketing.

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

In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, which sets minimum standards for the registration and regulation of pharmaceutical distributors by the states. Furthermore, the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (the “DSCSA”) was enacted with the aim of building an electronic system to identify and trace certain prescription medicines distributed in the United States, including most biological products. The DSCSA mandates phased-in and resource-intensive obligations for pharmaceutical manufacturers, wholesale distributors, and dispensers over a 10-year period which culminated in November 2023. Most recently, the FDA announced a one-year stabilization period to November 2024, giving entities subject to the DSCSA additional time to finalize interoperable tracking systems and to ensure supply chain continuity. From time to time, new legislation and regulations may be implemented that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the approval, manufacturing and marketing of products regulated by the FDA. It is impossible to predict whether further legislative or regulatory changes will be enacted, or FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations changed or what the impact of such changes, if any, may be.

U.S. patent term restoration and marketing exclusivity

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of the FDA approval of the use of our product candidates, some of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent restoration term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, patent term restoration cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. The patent term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of a BLA plus the time between the submission date of a BLA and the approval of that application. Only one patent applicable to an approved biological product is eligible for the extension and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. In addition, a patent can only be extended once and only for a single product. The USPTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. In the future, we may intend to apply for restoration of patent term for one of our patents, if and as applicable, to add patent life beyond its current expiration date, depending on the expected length of the clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant BLA.

A biological product may also obtain pediatric market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity is a type of non-patent marketing exclusivity available in the United States and, if granted, it provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing regulatory exclusivity or listed patents. This six-month exclusivity may be granted if an NDA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond to a Written Request from the FDA for such data. The data do not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted. If reports of requested pediatric studies are submitted to and accepted by the FDA within the statutory time limits, whatever statutory or regulatory periods of exclusivity or patent protection cover the product are extended by six months. This is not a patent term extension, but it effectively extends the regulatory period

during which the FDA cannot approve another application. The issuance of a Written Request does not require the sponsor to undertake the described studies.

Reference product exclusivity for biological products

In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the “ACA”) was enacted in the United States and included the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (the “BPCIA”). The BPCIA amended the Public Health Service Act (the “PHSA”) to create an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. To date, the FDA has approved a number of biosimilars, and numerous biosimilars have been approved in Europe. The FDA has also issued several guidance documents outlining its approach to reviewing and approving biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars.

A biosimilar product is defined as one that is highly similar to a reference product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components and for which there are no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of the safety, purity and potency of the product. An interchangeable product is a biosimilar product that 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. Upon licensure by the FDA, an interchangeable biosimilar may be substituted for the reference product without the intervention of the health care provider who prescribed the reference product. The FDA approved the first interchangeable biosimilars, including an interchangeable monoclonal antibody biosimilar, in 2021.

The biosimilar applicant must demonstrate that the product is biosimilar based on data from (1) analytical studies showing that the biosimilar product is highly similar to the reference product; (2) animal studies (including toxicity); and (3) one or more clinical studies to demonstrate safety, purity and potency in one or more appropriate conditions of use for which the reference product is approved. In addition, the applicant must show that the biosimilar and reference products have the same mechanism of action for the conditions of use on the label, route of administration, dosage and strength, and the production facility must meet standards designed to assure product safety, purity and potency.

A reference biological product is granted 12 years of data exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the product, and the first approved interchangeable biologic product will be granted an exclusivity period of up to one year after it is first commercially marketed. As part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2023, Congress amended the PHSA in order to permit multiple interchangeable products approved on the same day to receive and benefit from this one-year exclusivity period. If pediatric studies are performed and accepted by the FDA as responsive to a Written Request, the 12-year exclusivity period will be extended for an additional six months. In addition, the FDA will not accept an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until four years after the date of first licensure of the reference product. “First licensure” typically means the initial date the particular product at issue was licensed in the United States. Date of first licensure does not include the date of licensure of (and a new period of exclusivity is not available for) a supplement for the reference product for a subsequent application filed by the same sponsor or manufacturer of the reference 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 case-by-case basis with data submitted by the sponsor.

The BPCIA is complex and is still being interpreted and implemented by the FDA. In addition, recent government proposals have sought to reduce the 12-year reference product exclusivity period. Other aspects of the BPCIA, some of which may impact the BPCIA exclusivity provisions, have also been the subject of litigation. As a result, the ultimate impact, implementation and meaning of the BPCIA is subject to significant uncertainty.

Additional regulation

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

Furthermore, some countries have enacted or are considering enacting legal restrictions on the import or export of human genetic materials, cells or tissues. For example, in China, the Ministry of Science and Technology (“MOST”) and the former Ministry of Health in June 1998 jointly established the Interim Measures for the Administration of Human Genetic Resources in China. In July 2015, the MOST issued the Service Guide for the Examination and Approval of Sampling, Collecting, Trading, Exporting Human Genetic Resources, which provides that foreign entities that collect and use patients’ human genetic resources in clinical trials shall be required to file for an advance approval with the Human Genetic Resources Administration Office (“HGRAO”) through its online system.

In October 2017, the MOST issued the Circular on Optimizing the Administrative Examination and Approval of Human Genetic Resources, which simplified the approval process for collecting and using human genetic resources for the purpose of seeking marketing authorization of medicines in China.

In May 2019, the State Council of China issued the Regulation on the Administration of Human Genetic Resources (the “HGR Regulation”), which stipulates the approval requirements pertinent to research collaborations between Chinese and foreign-owned entities. Pursuant to this new rule, a new filing system (as opposed to the advance approval approach originally in place) is put in place for international clinical trials using Chinese patients’ biospecimens at clinical study sites without involving the export of such biospecimens outside of China. A notification filing that specifies the type, quantity and usage of the biospecimens, among others, with the HGRAO is required before conducting such clinical trials. The collection, use, and outbound transfer of Chinese patients’ biospecimens in international collaboration for basic scientific research involving export are still subject to the advance approval of the HGRAO.

In October 2020, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress promulgated the China Biosecurity Law, which became effective on April 15, 2021. The China Biosecurity Law reaffirms the regulatory requirements stipulated by the HGR Regulation while potentially increasing the administrative fines significantly in cases in which foreign entities are alleged to have collected, preserved or exported Chinese human genetic resources.

U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the “FCPA”), to which we are subject, prohibits corporations and individuals from engaging in certain activities to obtain or retain business or to influence a person working in an official capacity. It is illegal to pay, offer to pay or authorize the payment of anything of value to any foreign government official, government staff member, political party or political candidate in an attempt to obtain or retain business or to otherwise influence a person working in an official capacity.

Government regulation outside of the United States

In addition to regulations in the United States, we are subject to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing, among other things, research and development, clinical trials, testing, manufacturing, safety, efficacy, labeling, packaging, storage, record keeping, distribution, reporting, advertising and other promotional practices involving biological products as well as authorization and approval of our products. Because biologically sourced raw materials are subject to unique contamination risks, their use may be restricted in some countries.

The requirements and process governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, the clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki. If we fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension of clinical trials, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.

European Union clinical trials regulation

Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign countries prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. Certain countries outside of the United States have a similar process that requires the submission of a clinical trial application much like the IND prior to the commencement of human clinical trials. In the European Union, for example, a Clinical Trial Application (“CTA”) must be submitted for each clinical trial to each country’s National Competent Authority (“NCA”) and at least one IEC, much like the FDA and an IRB, respectively. Once the CTA is approved in accordance with a country’s requirements, the corresponding clinical trial may proceed. Under the current regime (the EU Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC and corresponding national laws) all suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions to the investigated medicine that occur during the clinical trial have to be reported to the NCA and ECs of the Member State where they occurred.

Under the Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014, which came into effect on January 31, 2022, there is a centralized application procedure where one EU Member State’s competent authority takes the lead in reviewing part I of the application,

which contains scientific and medicinal product documentation, and the other national authorities only have limited involvement. Part II, which contains the national and patient-level documentation, is assessed individually by each EU Member State. Any substantial changes to the trial protocol or other information submitted with the CTA must be notified to or approved by the relevant competent authorities and ethics committees. Medicines used in clinical trials must be manufactured in accordance with good manufacturing practices. Other national and EU-wide regulatory requirements may also apply.

Currently, the extent to which clinical trials will be governed by the Clinical Trials Regulation will depend on when the clinical trial is initiated or on the duration of an ongoing trial. As of January 2023, all new clinical trials must comply with the Clinical Trials Regulation. In addition, any clinical trial that was already under way as of January 1, 2023 and continues for more than three years from the day on which the Clinical Trials Regulation becomes applicable (i.e., January 31, 2025), the Clinical Trials Regulation will at that time begin to apply to the clinical trial.

Medicinal product review and approval in the EEA

In the European Economic Area (the “EEA”) (comprised of the EU Member States plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein), medicinal products, including advanced therapy medicinal products (“ATMPs”), are subject to extensive pre-and post-market regulation by regulatory authorities at both the EEA and national levels. Regulated in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 (the “ATMP Regulation”), ATMPs comprise gene therapy products, somatic cell therapy products and tissue engineered products. The CAT (as defined below) designated REACT as a tissue engineered product. Gene therapy products deliver genes into the body that lead to a therapeutic, prophylactic or diagnostic effect. We anticipate that REACT will be regulated as an ATMP in the EEA.

To obtain regulatory approval of an ATMP under EEA regulatory systems, we must submit a marketing authorization application (“MAA”) under the centralized procedure administered by the EMA. The application used to submit the BLA in the United States is similar to the required application process in the European Union, with the exception of, among other things, certain specific requirements set out in the ATMP Regulation, for example certain additional product characteristic information that must be included in the MAA. The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization by the European Commission that is valid across all of the EEA. As provided for in the ATMP Regulation, the scientific evaluation of MAAs for ATMPs is primarily performed by a specialized scientific committee called the Committee for Advanced Therapies (the “CAT”). The CAT prepares a draft opinion on the quality, safety and efficacy of the ATMP which is the subject of the MAA, which is sent for final approval to the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (the “CHMP”). The CHMP recommendation is then sent to the European Commission, which adopts a decision binding in all EEA Member States. The maximum timeframe for the evaluation of a MAA for an ATMP is 210 days from receipt of a valid MAA, excluding clock stops when additional information or written or oral explanation is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions of the CAT and/or CHMP. Clock stops may extend the timeframe of evaluation of a MAA considerably beyond 210 days. Where the CHMP gives a positive opinion, the EMA provides the opinion together with supporting documentation to the European Commission, which makes and issues the final decision to grant a marketing authorization within 67 days of receipt of the EMA’s recommendation. Accelerated assessment may be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is of major interest from the point of view of public health and, in particular, from the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation. If the CHMP accepts such a request, the timeframe of 210 days for assessment will be reduced to 150 days (excluding clock stops), but it is possible that the CHMP may revert to the standard time limit for the centralized procedure if it determines that the application is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment.

In April 2023, the European Commission issued a proposal that will revise and replace the existing legislation framework for human medicines. If adopted and implemented as currently proposed, these revisions will significantly change several aspects of medicinal product development and approval in the European Union.

In addition, because the United Kingdom (which comprises Great Britain and Northern Ireland) left the European Union, Great Britain will no longer be covered by centralized marketing authorizations (under the Northern Ireland Protocol, centralized marketing authorizations will continue to be recognized in Northern Ireland). All medicinal products with a current centralized marketing authorization were automatically converted to Great Britain marketing authorizations on January, 1 2021. However, to commercialize new medicinal products in the United Kingdom after January 1, 2021, a separate application to the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (the “MHRA”) is required

Data and marketing exclusivity

The EEA also provides opportunities for market exclusivity. Upon receiving marketing authorization in the EEA, innovative medicinal products generally receive eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity. If granted, data exclusivity prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from referencing the innovator’s preclinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization during a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EEA. During the additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization 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 period. The overall ten-year period will be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to authorization, is held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. Even if an innovative medicinal product gains the prescribed period of data exclusivity, another company may market another version of the product if such company obtained marketing authorization based on a MAA with a complete independent data package of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical tests and clinical trials. There is, however, no guarantee that a product will be considered by the European Union’s regulatory authorities to be an innovative medicinal product, and products may therefore not qualify for data exclusivity.

Post-approval controls

Following approval, the holder of the marketing authorization is required to comply with a range of requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of the medicinal product. These include the following:

Failure to comply with European Union and EU Member State laws that apply to the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing approval, marketing authorization of medicinal products and marketing of such products (both before and after grant of the marketing authorization), manufacturing of pharmaceutical products, statutory health insurance, bribery and anti-corruption or with other applicable regulatory requirements may result in administrative, civil or criminal penalties. Such penalties could include delays or refusal to authorize the conduct of clinical trials or to grant the marketing authorization, product withdrawals and recalls, product seizures, suspension, withdrawal or variation of the marketing authorization, total or partial suspension of production, distribution, manufacturing or clinical trials, operating restrictions, injunctions, suspension of licenses, fines and criminal penalties.

Brexit and the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom

As of January 1, 2021, EU law no longer directly applies in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has adopted existing EU medicines regulation as standalone UK legislation with some amendments to reflect procedural and other requirements with respect to marketing authorizations and other regulatory provisions.

The MHRA is responsible for regulating the United Kingdom medicinal products market (Great Britain and Northern Ireland). In order to market medicines in the United Kingdom, manufacturers must hold a UK authorization. On January 1, 2021, all EU marketing authorizations were converted to UK marketing authorizations subject to a manufacturer opt-out. The United Kingdom has introduced a separate UK-specific processes for regulatory submissions and medicinal product MA, and MHRA guidance states that the United Kingdom will have the power to take into account marketing authorizations made under the EU decentralized and mutual recognition procedures. On January 1, 2024, the MHRA launched the International Recognition Procedure (“IRP”), which provides for an expedited authorization procedure for products that have received positive marketing authorization decisions from trusted partner agencies, such as the EMA or the FDA. There are two available routes for assessment and recognition under the IRP:

United Kingdom medicines legislation is subject to future regulatory change under the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021. This act sets out a new framework for the adoption of medicines regulation.

Different rules apply in Northern Ireland following implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol, under which EU central marketing applications continue to apply there. However, in March 2023, the United Kingdom government and the European Commission reached agreement on a regulatory framework to replace the Northern Ireland Protocol, referred to as the Windsor Framework. The Windsor Framework is expected to apply as of January 1, 2025 and will change the existing system under the Northern Ireland Protocol, including the regulation of pharmaceutical products in the UK. Specifically, the MHRA will be responsible for approving all medicines intended to be marketed in the UK (i.e., Great Britain and Northern Ireland), while the EMA will no longer be involved in approving medicines intended for sale in Northern Ireland.

The Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which sets forth a framework for partnership between the European Union and the United Kingdom, became effective as of January 1, 2021. The Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom contains an Annex in relation to medicinal products with the objective of facilitating availability of medicines, promotion of public health and consumer protection in respect of medicinal products. The Annex provides for mutual recognition of good manufacturing practice (GMP) inspections and certificates, meaning that manufacturing facilities do not need to undergo duplicate inspections for the two markets. The Annex establishes a Working Group on Medicinal Products to deal with matters under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, facilitate co-operation and for the carrying out of technical discussions. It is expected that further bilateral discussions will continue with respect to regulatory areas not the subject of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, including pharmacovigilance. The Trade and Cooperation Agreement also does not include reciprocal arrangements for the recognition of batch testing certification. However, the United Kingdom has listed approved countries, including the EEA which will enable UK importers and wholesales to recognize certain certification and regulatory standards. The European Commission has not adopted such recognition procedures.

It is expected that the establishment of a separate United Kingdom authorization system, albeit with transitional recognition procedures in the United Kingdom, will lead to additional regulatory costs. In addition, additional regulatory costs may be incurred with respect to the lack of mutual recognition of batch testing and related regulatory measures.

Relatedly, following the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU, the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) has been implemented in the United Kingdom (as the UK GDPR). The UK GDPR sits alongside the amended UK Data Protection Act 2018 which implements certain derogations in the EU GDPR into United Kingdom law. Under the UK GDPR, companies not established in the United Kingdom but who process personal data in relation to the offering of goods or services to individuals in the United Kingdom, or to monitor their behavior will be subject to the UK GDPR – the requirements of which are (at this time) largely aligned with those under the EU GDPR and as such, may lead to similar compliance and operational costs with potential fines of up to £17.5 million or 4% of global turnover. On June 28, 2021, the European Commission issued a decision that the United Kingdom ensures an adequate level of protection for personal data transferred under the EU GDPR from the European Union to the United Kingdom. In June of 2021, the European Commission issued a decision, which will sunset on June 27, 2025 without further action, that the United Kingdom ensures an adequate level of protection for personal data transferred under the E.U. GDPR from the E.U. to the United Kingdom. In addition, the Parliament of the United Kingdom is currently considering the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill to harmonize the 2018 Data Protection Act, U.K. GDPR, and the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations under one legislative framework.

Other health care laws and compliance requirements

If our product candidates are approved in the United States, we will have to comply with various U.S. federal and state laws, rules and regulations pertaining to health care fraud and abuse, including anti-kickback laws and false claims laws, rules and regulations. Violations of the fraud and abuse laws are punishable by criminal and civil sanctions, including, in some instances, exclusion from participation in federal and state health care programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. These laws include:

Additionally, we are subject to state and foreign equivalents of each of the health care laws and regulations described above, among others, some of which may be broader in scope and may apply regardless of the payor. Many U.S. states have adopted laws similar to the AKS and FCA, and may apply to our business practices, including, but not limited to, research, distribution, sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving health care items or services reimbursed by non-governmental payors, including private insurers. In addition, some states have passed laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the April 2003 Office of Inspector General Compliance Program Guidance for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and/or the Pharmaceutical Research

and Manufacturers of America’s Code on Interactions with Health Care Professionals. Several states also impose other marketing restrictions or require pharmaceutical companies to make marketing or price disclosures to the state. There are ambiguities as to what is required to comply with these state requirements and if we fail to comply with an applicable state law requirement, we could be subject to penalties.

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws.

Violations of fraud and abuse laws may be punishable by criminal and/or civil sanctions, including penalties, fines, imprisonment and/or exclusion or suspension from federal and state health care programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and debarment from contracting with the U.S. government. In addition, private individuals have the ability to bring actions on behalf of the U.S. government under the FCA as well as under the false claims laws of several states.

Law enforcement authorities are increasingly focused on enforcing health care fraud and abuse laws, and it is possible that some of our practices may be challenged under these laws. Efforts to ensure that our current and future business arrangements with third parties, and our business generally, will comply with applicable health care laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. If our operations, including our arrangements with physicians and other health care providers are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, exclusion from participation in federal and state health care programs (such as Medicare and Medicaid), and imprisonment, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results. The approval and commercialization of any of our product candidates outside the United States will also subject us to foreign equivalents of the health care laws mentioned above, among other foreign laws.

If any of the physicians or other health care providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government-funded health care programs, which may also adversely affect our business.

The risk of our being found in violation of these laws is increased by the fact that many of these laws have not been fully interpreted by the regulatory authorities or the courts, and their provisions are open to a variety of interpretations. Any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. The shifting compliance environment and the need to build and maintain a robust system to comply with multiple jurisdictions with different compliance and reporting requirements increases the possibility that a health care company may violate one or more of the requirements. Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable health care laws and regulations will involve substantial cost.

Data Privacy and Security

There are federal, state and foreign laws governing the privacy and security of health information and personal information, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and apply simultaneously, thus complicating compliance efforts.

HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (“HITECH”), and its implementing regulations, strengthens and expands requirements relating to the privacy, security, and transmission of individually identifiable health information; and requires notification to affected individuals and regulatory authorities of certain breaches of security of individually identifiable health information.

HITECH strengthened and expanded HIPAA and increased penalties for violations. Under HITECH, regulated entities are subject to enforcement by the federal government and by state Attorneys General, who were given authority to enforce HIPAA under HITECH. Some state laws impose privacy protections more stringent than HIPAA and data security requirements applicable to information beyond health care information (for example, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (the “CCPA”)). These state laws create an additional level of enforcement and may require additional reporting in the event of breach. Most of the health care providers in the United States with whom we collaborate to develop and test our products must comply with HIPAA and applicable state law. We may not be directly subject to these laws, however, we must structure our activities in compliance with these laws to ensure that we can access and use health information to support our research, development and other activities. Our failure to comply with these privacy and security laws or a breach of health information or personal data could prompt enforcement against our health care provider partners, create third party liability for our company and/or cause significant financial or reputational harm to our company.

We may also be subject to additional privacy restrictions. The collection, use, storage, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data regarding individuals in the EEA, including personal health data, is subject to the GDPR, which became effective on May 25, 2018. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, including requirements relating to processing health and other sensitive data, obtaining explicit consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, providing notification of data breaches, and

taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the European Union and EEA, including the United States, and permits data protection authorities to impose large penalties for violations of the GDPR, 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. In addition, the GDPR includes restrictions on cross-border data transfers. Compliance with the 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 despite those efforts, there is a risk that we may be subject to fines and penalties, litigation, and reputational harm in connection with our European activities.

In July 2023, the European Commission adopted an adequacy decision for a new mechanism for transferring data from the European Union to the United States – the E.U.-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, which provides individuals in the European Union with several new rights, including the right to obtain access to their data, or obtain correction or deletion of incorrect or unlawfully handled data. The adequacy decision followed the signing of an executive order introducing new binding safeguards to address the points raised by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its decision on a case known as Schrems II, which invalidated the previous E.U.-U.S. Privacy Shield. Notably, the new obligations were geared to ensure that data can be accessed by U.S. intelligence agencies only to the extent necessary and proportionate and to establish an independent and impartial redress mechanism to handle complaints from Europeans concerning the collection of their data for national security purposes. The European Commission will continually review developments in the United States along with its adequacy decision. Adequacy decisions can be adapted or even withdrawn in the event of developments affecting the level of protection in the applicable jurisdiction. Future actions of European Union data protection authorities are difficult to predict. Some customers or other service providers may respond to these evolving laws and regulations by asking us to make certain privacy or data-related contractual commitments that we are unable or unwilling to make. This could lead to the loss of current or prospective customers or other business relationships.

Health care reform

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and continue to be, several legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the health care system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of product and therapeutic candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities, and affect the ability to profitably sell product and therapeutic candidates that obtain marketing approval. The FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product and therapeutic candidates. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we otherwise may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, the containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal and state governments and the prices of therapeutics have been a focus in this effort. The U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs to limit the growth of government-paid healthcare costs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement, and requirements for substitution of generic and biosimilar products for branded prescription medicines, respectively. In recent years, the U.S. Congress has considered reductions in Medicare reimbursement levels for medicines and biologics administered by physicians. CMS, the agency that administers the Medicare and Medicaid programs, also has authority to revise reimbursement rates and to implement coverage restrictions for most drugs and biologics. Cost reduction initiatives and changes in coverage implemented through legislation or regulation could decrease utilization of and reimbursement for any approved products we may market in the future. While Medicare regulations apply only to pharmaceutical benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates. Therefore, any reduction in reimbursement that results from federal legislation or regulation may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors.

The ACA, as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act, was enacted in 2010 and substantially changed the way health care is financed by both governmental and private insurers in the United States, and significantly impacted the pharmaceutical industry. The ACA was intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against healthcare fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for healthcare and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on pharmaceutical manufacturers, and impose additional health policy reforms. With regard to biopharmaceutical products, the ACA, among other things, addressed a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for therapeutics that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extended the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, established annual fees on manufacturers of certain branded prescription medicines, created a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, and expanded the 340B drug discount program. As another example, the 2021

Consolidated Appropriations Act signed into law on December 27, 2020 incorporated extensive health care provisions and amendments to existing laws, including a requirement that all manufacturers of medicines and biological products covered under Medicare Part B report the product’s average sales price, to the DHHS beginning on January 1, 2022, subject to enforcement via civil money penalties.

Legislative and regulatory changes under the ACA remain possible, but it is unknown what form any such changes or any law would take and how or whether it may affect the biopharmaceutical industry as a whole or our business in the future. We expect that changes or additions to the ACA, the Medicare and Medicaid programs and changes stemming from other healthcare reform measures, especially with regard to healthcare access, financing or other legislation in individual states, could have a material adverse effect on the healthcare industry in the United States.

In addition, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which biopharmaceutical manufacturers set prices for their marketed products. Such scrutiny has resulted in several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to medicine pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the cost of medicines under Medicare, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for pharmaceutical products. Notably, on December 20, 2019, the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2020 became law (P.L. 116-94) and included a piece of bipartisan legislation called the Creating and Restoring Equal Access to Equivalent Samples Act of 2019 (the “CREATES Act”). The CREATES Act aims to address the concern articulated by both the FDA and others in the industry that some brand manufacturers have improperly restricted the distribution of their products, including by invoking the existence of a REMS for certain products, to deny generic and biosimilar product developers access to samples of brand products. Because generic and biosimilar product developers need samples to conduct certain comparative testing required by the FDA, some have attributed the inability to timely obtain samples as a cause of delay in the entry of generic and biosimilar products. To remedy this concern, the CREATES Act establishes a private cause of action that permits a generic or biosimilar product developer to sue the brand manufacturer to compel it to furnish the necessary samples on “commercially reasonable, market-based terms.” Whether and how generic and biosimilar product developments will use this new pathway, as well as the likely outcome of any legal challenges to provisions of the CREATES Act, remain highly uncertain and its potential effects on our future commercial products are unknown.

More recently, in August 2022, President Biden signed into the law the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the “IRA”). Among other things, the IRA has multiple provisions that may impact the prices of drug products that are both sold into the Medicare program and throughout the United States. Starting in 2023, a manufacturer of a drug or biological product covered by Medicare Parts B or D must pay a rebate to the federal government if the drug product’s price increases faster than the rate of inflation. This calculation is made on a drug product by drug product basis and the amount of the rebate owed to the federal government is directly dependent on the volume of a drug product that is paid for by Medicare Parts B or D. Additionally, starting in payment year 2026, CMS will negotiate drug prices annually for a select number of single-source Part D drugs, including biologics that have been on the market for 13 years, without generic or biosimilar competition. CMS will also negotiate drug prices for a select number of Part B drugs, including biologics that have been on the market for 13 years, starting for payment year 2028. If a drug product is selected by CMS for negotiation, it is expected that the revenue generated from such drug will decrease. CMS has begun to implement these new authorities and entered into the first set of agreements with pharmaceutical manufacturers to conduct price negotiations in October 2023. However, the IRA’s impact on the pharmaceutical industry in the United States remains uncertain, in part because multiple large pharmaceutical companies and other stakeholders (e.g., the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) have initiated federal lawsuits against CMS arguing the program is unconstitutional for a variety of reasons, among other complaints. Those lawsuits are currently ongoing.

At the state level in the United States, legislatures have also increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access, and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. For example, in recent years, several states have formed prescription drug affordability boards (“PDABs”). Much like the IRA’s drug price negotiation program, these PDABs have attempted to implement upper payment limits (“UPLs”) on drugs sold in their respective states in both public and commercial health plans. In August 2023, Colorado’s PDAB announced a list of five prescription drugs that would undergo an affordability review. The effects of these efforts remain uncertain pending the outcomes of several federal lawsuits challenging state authority to regulate prescription drug payment limits. Furthermore, in December 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that federal law does not preempt the states’ ability to regulate pharmaceutical benefit managers and other members of the healthcare and pharmaceutical supply chain, an important decision that may lead to further and more aggressive efforts by states in this area. The Federal Trade Commission in mid-2022 also launched sweeping investigations into the practices of the PBM industry that could lead to additional federal and state legislative or regulatory proposals targeting such entities’ operations, pharmacy networks, or financial arrangements. Significant efforts to change the PBM industry as it currently exists in the United States may affect the entire pharmaceutical supply chain and the business of other stakeholders, including biopharmaceutical developers like us. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing.

We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative or executive action, either in the United States or abroad. We expect that additional federal, state, and foreign healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in limited coverage and reimbursement and reduced demand for our products, once approved, or additional pricing pressures.

Coverage and reimbursement

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any cell-based regenerative therapies for which we may obtain regulatory approval. In the United States and markets in other countries, sales of any cell-based therapies for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend, in part, on the availability of coverage and reimbursement from payors. Payors include government authorities, managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations. Patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers who prescribe such treatments generally rely on these third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the treatment and other associated health care costs. The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a medicine, device or biologic product may be separate from the process for setting the reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product. Payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved products for a particular indication. A decision by a payor not to cover our cell-based therapies could reduce physician utilization of our products, if they are approved, and have a material adverse effect on our sales, results of operations and financial condition. Moreover, a payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development and manufacturing costs.

In addition, coverage and reimbursement for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. One payor’s decision to cover a particular medical product or service does not ensure that other payors will also provide coverage for the medical product or service, or will provide coverage at an adequate reimbursement rate. In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement for new medicines are typically made by CMS. CMS decides whether and to what extent a new medicine will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare and private payors tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree.

Additionally, the coverage determination process will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately and will be a time-consuming process.

Payors are increasingly challenging the price and examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy. In order to obtain and maintain coverage and reimbursement for any product, we may need to conduct expensive evidence generation studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of such a product, in addition to the costs required to obtain regulatory approvals. If payors do not consider a product to be cost-effective compared to current standards of care, they may not cover the product as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow a company to cover its costs or make a profit.

In addition to the IRA, which is designed to exert downward pressure on drugs and biologics covered under Medicare Parts B and D (see Health care reform, above), President Biden issued Executive Order 14087 in October 2022, which called for CMS to prepare and submit a report to the White House on potential payment and delivery modes that would complement the IRA, lower drug costs, and promote access to innovative drugs. In February 2023, CMS published its report which described three potential models focusing on affordability, accessibility and feasibility of implementation for further testing by the CMS Innovation Center. As of February 2024, the CMS Innovation Center continues to test the proposed models and has started to roll out plans for access model testing of certain product types (e.g., cell and gene therapies) by states and manufacturers. Additional state and federal healthcare reform measures are expected to be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for certain biopharmaceutical products or additional pricing pressures.

Outside of the United States, the pricing of pharmaceutical products is subject to governmental control in many countries. For example, in the European Union, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed with the government authority. Furthermore, some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the effectiveness and/or cost-effectiveness of a particular therapy to current standards of care as part of so-called health technology assessments in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. Additionally, there may be a need for activities to secure reimbursement for procedures associated with products administered in a hospital setting under the diagnosis-related group system, whereby a billing code may not exist or may be currently insufficient to cover the cost of the procedure. In other instances, countries may monitor and control product volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions in the form of treatment policies. Efforts to control prices and utilization of pharmaceutical products and medical devices will likely continue as countries attempt to manage health care expenditures.

Human Capital Resources

As of December 31, 2023, ProKidney had 163 full-time employees. This included 53 in research and development, 83 in manufacturing, operations, quality control and quality assurance, and 27 in general and administrative functions. We have no collective bargaining agreements with our employees, and we have not experienced any work stoppages. We consider our relations with our employees to be good.

Information About Our Executive Officers and Directors

Information Available on the Internet

Our internet address is https://www.prokidney.com, to which we regularly post copies of our press releases as well as additional information about us. This Annual Report on Form 10-K and our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and all amendments to those reports, are available to you free of charge through the Investors section of our website as soon as reasonably practicable after such materials have been electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. The SEC maintains an internet site (http://www.sec.gov) that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC. We include our web site address in this Annual Report only as an inactive textual reference. Information contained in our website does not constitute a part of this report or our other filings with the SEC.

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital

We have incurred significant net losses since inception and we expect to continue to incur significant net losses for the foreseeable future.

We have incurred significant net losses since our inception. We continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations. For the years ended December 31, 2023, 2022 and 2021, we reported net losses before noncontrolling interest of $135.4 million, $148.1 million and $55.1 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2023 and 2022, we had an accumulated deficit of $1,139.7 million and $1,104.1 million, respectively. We have devoted substantially all of our resources and efforts to research and development, and we expect that it will be several years, if ever, before we generate revenue from product sales. Even if we receive marketing approval for, and commercialize our lead product candidate, REACT, we expect that we will continue to incur substantial research and development and other expenses to develop and market additional potential product candidates.

Our product candidate, REACT, is still in clinical testing. We expect to continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, and we anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if, and as, we:

To become and remain profitable, we must develop and eventually commercialize products with significant market potential. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including completing non-clinical studies and clinical trials, obtaining marketing approval for REACT and any future product candidates, manufacturing, marketing and selling products for which we may obtain marketing approval and satisfying any post-marketing requirements. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with biopharmaceutical product development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when, or if, we will be able to achieve profitability. We may never succeed in any or all of these activities and, even if we do, we may never generate revenue that is significant enough to achieve profitability. If we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would decrease the value of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, maintain our research and development efforts, expand our business or continue our operations.

We will continue to require substantial additional capital to finance our operations. If we are unable to raise such capital when needed, or on acceptable terms, we may be forced to delay, reduce and/or eliminate one or more of our research and product development programs, future commercialization efforts or other operations.

Developing biopharmaceutical products, including conducting clinical trials, is a very time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete. Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since inception. We expect our expenses to increase in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we conduct our ongoing and planned clinical trials of REACT and any future product candidates that we may develop, seek regulatory approvals for REACT and our future product candidates, and manufacture, launch and commercialize any products for which we receive regulatory approval. We also expect to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in order to maintain our continuing operations. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on acceptable terms, we may be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate one or more of our research and product development programs or future commercialization efforts.

As of December 31, 2023, we had approximately $363.0 million in cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments. Based on our current operating plan, we believe that our cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments will be sufficient to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into the fourth quarter of 2025. However, this does not reflect the possibility that we may not be able to access a portion of our existing cash, cash equivalents and investments due to market conditions. For example, on March 10, 2023, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or the FDIC, took control and was appointed receiver of Silicon Valley Bank. If other banks and financial institutions enter receivership or become insolvent in the future in response to financial conditions affecting the banking system and financial markets, our ability to access our existing cash, cash equivalents and investments may be threatened and could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition. Furthermore, our future capital requirements and the period for which our existing resources will support our operations may vary significantly from what we expect, and we will in any event require additional capital to complete clinical development of any of our current programs.

Our monthly spending levels will vary based on new and ongoing development and corporate activities. Because the length of time and activities associated with development of REACT and any future product candidates is highly uncertain, we are unable

to estimate the actual funds we will require for development, marketing and commercialization activities. Our future funding requirements, both near and long-term, will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to:

We currently do not have any committed external source of funds or other support for our development efforts, and we cannot be certain that additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Until we can generate sufficient revenue to finance our cash requirements, which we may never do, we expect to finance our future cash needs through a combination of public or private equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, strategic alliances, licensing arrangements and other marketing or distribution arrangements. If we raise additional funds through public or private equity offerings, the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect the rights of our shareholders. Further, to the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of ordinary shares or securities convertible or exchangeable into ordinary shares, your ownership interest will be diluted. In addition, any debt financing may subject us to fixed payment obligations and covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends. If we raise additional capital through marketing and distribution arrangements or other collaborations, strategic alliances or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish certain valuable intellectual property or other rights to REACT and any future product candidates, technologies, future revenue streams or research programs or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. We also may be required to seek collaborators for REACT or any of our future product candidates at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable or relinquish our rights to REACT and any future product candidates or technologies that we otherwise would seek to develop or commercialize ourselves. Market volatility could also adversely impact our ability to access capital as and when needed. If we are unable to raise additional capital in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, we may have to significantly delay, scale back or discontinue the development or commercialization of REACT or any of our future product candidates or one or more of our other research and development initiatives. Any of the above events could significantly harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations and cause the price of our ordinary shares to decline.

Risks Related to Research and Development of REACT and Our Future Product Candidates

We have a limited operating history and have not generated any revenue to date, and may never become profitable.

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history. We were founded in 2018, have no products approved for commercial sale and have not generated any revenue. Our operations to date have been limited to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, undertaking non-clinical studies, conducting clinical trials, developing a network of key opinion leaders, and performing research and development of REACT. Our approach to the discovery and development of product candidates is unproven, and we do not know whether we will be able to develop any products of commercial value. REACT and any other product candidates we develop will require substantial additional development and clinical research time and resources before we would be able to apply for or receive regulatory approvals and begin generating revenue from product sales. We have not yet demonstrated the ability to progress any product candidate through later-stage clinical trials leading to successful marketing authorization. We may be unable to obtain regulatory approval, manufacture a commercial scale product, or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, achieve market access, and acceptance with insurers and health care providers, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization.

Investment in biopharmaceutical product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate adequate efficacy or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval and become commercially viable. If and when one of our product candidates were to

receive regulatory approval, we would need to transition from a company with a research and development focus to a company capable of supporting commercial activities. We may not be successful in such a transition. In addition, as a business with a limited operating history, we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known and unknown factors and risks frequently experienced by early-stage biopharmaceutical companies in rapidly evolving and complex fields. Consequently, we have no meaningful history of operations upon which to evaluate our business, and predictions about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history or a history of successfully developing and commercializing medical products.

Due to the uncertainties and risks associated with these activities, we are unable to accurately and precisely predict the timing and amount of revenues, the extent of any further losses or if or when we might achieve profitability. We may never succeed in these activities and, even if we succeed in commercializing one or more of our product candidates, we may never generate revenue that is significant enough to achieve profitability. If we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis and we will continue to incur substantial research and development and other expenditures to develop and market additional product candidates. Our failure to become and remain profitable could decrease the value of our shares and impair our ability to raise capital, maintain our research and development efforts, expand our business or continue our operations.

The market for biologics and for the treatment of kidney disease is highly competitive. If we fail to effectively compete, our business, financial condition and operating results will suffer.

We face significant competition in the biologics market and in the area of treatment of kidney disease. We face competition from companies that develop and manufacture cell therapies, including major and specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, developers of tubular and glomerular cell drug modulators, antifibrosis medications, induced pluripotent cells, other autologous mesenchymal stem cells and mechanical renal assist devices such as implantable and wearable renal dialysis machines, and advances in peritoneal dialysis and home dialysis. Cell-based clinical trials by other companies are underway globally with umbilical, adipose and bone marrow derived mesenchymal stem cells for CKD. Early-phase human induced pluripotent stem cell therapies for kidney diseases are ongoing in Japan. We believe that our principal competitors include developers of SGLT2 inhibitors and MRAs, which are small-molecule therapies recently approved to lower risks of CKD progression.

Many of our current competitors may have competitive advantages over us, including significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, pre-clinical testing, clinical trials, manufacturing, and marketing than we have.

We believe that the principal competitive factors in our target markets include:

Even if approved, our products may not compete favorably or may not be successful in the face of increasing competition from new products and technologies introduced by existing competitors or new companies entering our target markets. Notably, we may face additional competition from GLP-1 agonists, approved for type 2 diabetes and obesity, which have shown to reduce mortality in patients with advanced-stage CKD and ESRD, slow the progression of CKD and may lead to long term weight loss. Ongoing and increased adoption of GLP-1 agonists or other new or innovative technologies, drugs or other treatments have the potential to impact the rate of growth of our intended patient population or decrease the size of our addressable market. Any sustained or significant decline in the rate of growth of our intended patient population or demand for our products, whether as a result of developments related to new or innovative technologies, drugs, treatments or otherwise, may adversely impact our business. In addition, our competitors may have or develop products or technologies that currently or in the future will enable them to produce competitive products with greater capabilities or at lower costs than ours. Any failure to compete effectively could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results.

Our business is highly dependent on the success of our lead product candidate, REACT, as well as any other future product candidates that we may advance into clinical development. REACT and our future product candidates will require significant

additional clinical development and funding before we may be able to seek regulatory approval for and launch a product commercially.

We currently have no products that are approved for commercial sale and may never be able to develop marketable products. REACT, our lead product candidate, is in Phase 3 clinical development. We cannot offer any assurances or predict with any certainty that such Phase 3 clinical development will be successfully completed, that positive clinical data will be obtained from such Phase 3 clinical development efforts or that regulatory authorities will grant marketing approval for REACT, in any such case on the expected timelines. Furthermore, regulatory approvals for REACT, even if obtained, may limit the type of patients in which REACT may be used for CKD or otherwise require specific warning or labeling language, each of which may reduce the commercial potential of REACT. Even if approved, we might not be successful in commercializing REACT. Should we fail to obtain regulatory approvals for REACT or fail to successfully commercialize REACT upon such regulatory approvals, our business and financial condition could be materially harmed and we may be more heavily dependent on the success of our other therapeutic programs.

As an organization, we have not previously conducted any later stage or pivotal clinical trials, have limited experience in preparing, submitting and pursuing regulatory filings and have not previously submitted a BLA for any product candidate. Before we can generate any revenue from sales of our lead product candidate, REACT, or any of our future product candidates, we must complete clinical development, regulatory review and approval in one or more jurisdictions. We also need to obtain substantial additional funding to support our continuing operations and pursue our growth strategy. In addition, if REACT or any of our future product candidates is approved, we must ensure access to sufficient commercial manufacturing capacity and conduct significant marketing efforts in connection with any commercial launch. These efforts will require substantial investment, and we may not have the financial resources to continue development of REACT or any of our future product candidates.

We may experience setbacks that could delay or prevent regulatory approval of, or our ability to commercialize, REACT and any of our future product candidates, including:

We do not have complete control over many of these factors, including certain aspects of clinical development and the regulatory submission process, potential threats to our intellectual property rights and our manufacturing, marketing, distribution and sales efforts or that of any future collaborator.

REACT is based on a novel technology, which makes it difficult to predict the time and cost of product development and of subsequently obtaining regulatory approval.

The clinical trial requirements of the FDA, the EMA, and other regulatory authorities and the criteria these regulators use to determine the safety and efficacy of a product candidate vary substantially according to the type, complexity, novelty, and intended use and market of the potential products. The regulatory approval process for product candidates such as ours can be more expensive and take longer than for other, better known, or more extensively studied pharmaceutical or other product candidates.

Regulatory requirements in the United States and in other countries governing cell therapy products are evolving and the FDA or other regulatory bodies may change the requirements, or identify different regulatory pathways, for approval for REACT or any of our future product candidates. For example, the FDA has established the Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies within the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (“CBER”) to consolidate the review of cell therapy and related products, and has established the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to advise CBER in its review when called upon. It is possible that over time new or different divisions may be established or be granted the responsibility for regulating cell therapy products, including regenerative cell-based products, such as ours. Further, additional regulatory involvement from FDA advisory bodies, including the Cardio-Renal Advisory Committee, may delay review or make additional recommendations requiring further investigation. As a result, we may be required to change our regulatory strategy or to modify our applications for regulatory approval, which could delay and impair our ability to complete the non-clinical and clinical development and manufacture of, and obtain regulatory approval for, REACT or any future product candidates. Changes in regulatory authorities and advisory groups, or any new requirements or guidelines they promulgate, may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional studies, increase our development and manufacturing costs, lead to changes in regulatory pathways, positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of REACT or any future product candidates or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions.

We have concentrated our research and development efforts on utilizing regenerative renal cell-based therapies. To date, the FDA has approved a relatively small number of cell-based therapies for commercialization, and no regenerative renal-based cell therapy has been approved for commercial use by any regulatory authority. The processes and requirements imposed by the FDA or other applicable regulatory authorities may cause delays and additional costs in obtaining approvals for marketing authorization for REACT or any future product candidates. Because our platform is novel, and cell-based therapies are relatively new, regulatory agencies may lack experience in evaluating product candidates like REACT. This novelty may lengthen the regulatory review process, including the time it takes for the FDA to review our IND applications if and when submitted, increase our development costs and delay or prevent commercialization of REACT. Additionally, advancing novel CKD therapies creates significant challenges for us, including:

We must be able to overcome these challenges in order for us to develop, commercialize and manufacture REACT.

As we advance REACT, we will be required to consult with the FDA and other regulatory authorities, and REACT will likely be reviewed by an FDA advisory committee. We also must comply with applicable requirements, and if we fail to do so, we may be required to delay or discontinue development of REACT. Delays or unexpected costs in obtaining, or the failure to obtain, the regulatory approval necessary to bring a potential product to market could impair our ability to generate sufficient product revenues to maintain our business.

In addition, adverse developments in preclinical studies or clinical trials conducted by others in the field of cell therapy products may cause the FDA, the EMA, and other regulatory bodies to revise the requirements for approval of any product candidates we may develop, and may otherwise negatively affect our ability to develop and commercialize REACT or future product candidates. Similarly, the European Commission may issue new guidelines concerning the development and marketing authorization for cell therapies and require that we comply with these new guidelines, which could require additional studies or clinical trials to support the marketing approval of REACT or any product candidates we may develop in the future or which could make our product candidates unable to successfully obtain approval.

The regulatory review committees and advisory groups described above and the new guidelines they promulgate may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional studies or clinical trials, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of these treatment candidates, or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions. As we advance our research programs and develop future product candidates, we will be required to consult with these regulatory and advisory groups and to comply with applicable guidelines. If we fail to do so, we may be required to delay or discontinue development of any product candidates we identify and develop.

Clinical development involves a lengthy, complex and expensive process, with an uncertain outcome, and the results of nonclinical studies, previous clinical trials, or interim results of ongoing clinical trials of REACT and any of our future product candidates may not be predictive of future results. Further, we may encounter substantial delays in completing the development of REACT and any of our future product candidates.

Our product candidate, REACT, is in clinical development, and its risk of failure is high. The clinical trials, manufacturing and marketing of REACT or any of our future product candidates, if approved, are and will continue to be subject to extensive and rigorous review and regulation by numerous government authorities in the United States and in other countries where we intend to test and market REACT and any of our future product candidates. Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of REACT or any of our future product candidates, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive testing and clinical trials that our product candidates are both safe and effective for use in each target indication. In particular, because REACT is subject to regulation as a biological product, we will need to demonstrate that it is safe, pure and potent for use in its target indication and lacks latent untoward cell effects. REACT and any other product candidate we may develop must demonstrate an adequate risk versus benefit profile in its intended patient population and for its intended use. The process of administration of REACT involves taking a small biopsy of tissue from the kidney. The risks associated with a biopsy include bleeding, pain, hematoma, or bruising, scarring, and infarcts, or loss of blood supply resulting in loss of function.

Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. In particular, the general approach for FDA approval of a new therapeutic modality can include dispositive data from two adequate well-controlled clinical trials of the relevant product in the relevant patient population. Our Phase 3 development program may involve one to two thousand patients, have significant costs and take years to complete. A product candidate can fail at any stage of testing, even after observing promising signals of activity in earlier nonclinical studies or clinical trials. The outcome of nonclinical studies and early clinical trials of REACT and our future product candidates may not be predictive of the success of the Phase 3 registrational development program, and interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. In addition, initial success in clinical trials may not be indicative of results obtained when such trials are completed. There is typically an extremely high rate of attrition from the failure of product candidates proceeding through clinical trials. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy profile despite having progressed through nonclinical studies and initial clinical trials. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or unacceptable safety issues, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials. Most product candidates that commence clinical trials are never approved as therapeutic products and there can be no assurance that any of our future clinical trials will ultimately be successful or support further clinical development of REACT or any of our future product candidates. Product candidates and delivery methods for cellular therapeutics and tissue engineered products that appear promising in the early phases of development may fail to reach the market for several reasons, including:

In addition, differences in trial design between early-stage clinical trials and later-stage clinical trials make it difficult to extrapolate the results of earlier clinical trials to later clinical trials. Moreover, clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their products. Additionally, our earlier stage trials are open-label studies, where both the subject and investigator know whether the subject is receiving REACT or standard of care therapy. Most typically, open-label clinical trials test only the investigational product candidate and sometimes do so at different dose levels. Open-label clinical trials are subject to various limitations and biases that may exaggerate any therapeutic effect as subjects in open-label clinical trials are aware when they are receiving treatment. In addition, open-label clinical trials may be subject to an

“investigator bias” where those assessing and reviewing the physiological outcomes of the clinical trials are aware of which subjects have received treatment and may interpret the information of the treated group more favorably given this knowledge. Given that our earlier stage trials include an open-label dosing design, while we believe our trials utilize objective assessment measures for measuring our endpoints and therefore are unlikely to be influenced in any manner by subject or investigator bias, it is unknown whether the open-label design may not be predictive of future clinical trial results with this or other product candidates for which we conduct an open-label clinical trial when studied in a controlled environment or with only objective endpoints.

Furthermore, the standards that the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities use when regulating REACT require judgment and may change over time, which makes it difficult to predict with certainty how they will be applied. Any analysis we perform of data from nonclinical and clinical activities is subject to validation and interpretation by regulatory authorities, which could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. We may also encounter unexpected delays or increased costs due to new government regulations. Examples of such regulations include future legislation or administrative action, or changes in FDA policy during the period of product development and FDA regulatory review. Specifically, some countries, such as China, have enacted or are considering enacting restrictions on the import and export of human genetic materials, cells and tissues. Such laws and regulations could impair our ability to import and export human cells and cell-based therapies, which could have a material adverse impact on our business. We cannot predict whether legislative changes will be enacted, whether FDA or foreign regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes, if any, may be. The FDA may also require a panel of experts, referred to as an Advisory Committee, to deliberate on the adequacy of the safety and efficacy data to support approval. The opinion of the Advisory Committee, although not binding, may have a significant impact on our ability to obtain approval of any product candidates that we develop.

To date, we have not completed any pivotal trials required for the approval of REACT. We may experience delays in conducting any clinical trials, need to be redesigned, recruit and enroll subjects on time or be completed on schedule, or at all. Clinical trials can be delayed suspended or terminated for a variety of reasons, including in connection with:

We may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, clinical trials that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval or commercialize REACT or any of our future product candidates or significantly increase the cost of such trials, including:

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

We could encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the IRBs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, by the DSMB for such trial or by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Such authorities may impose such a suspension or termination due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using REACT or one of our future product candidates, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial.

REACT, our lead product candidate, will require extensive clinical testing before we are prepared to submit a BLA or MAA for regulatory approval. We cannot predict with any certainty if or when we might complete the clinical development for REACT and submit a BLA or MAA for regulatory approval of REACT or whether any such BLA or MAA will be approved. We may also seek feedback from the FDA, EMA or other regulatory authorities on our clinical development program, and the FDA, EMA or such regulatory authorities may not provide such feedback on a timely basis, or such feedback may not be favorable, which could further delay our development programs.

We are currently conducting clinical trials in foreign countries, as well as in the United States. If we continue to seek to conduct clinical trials in foreign countries or pursue marketing approvals in foreign jurisdictions, we must comply with numerous foreign regulatory requirements governing, among other things, the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing and marketing authorization, pricing and third-party reimbursement. The foreign regulatory approval process varies among countries and may include all of the risks associated with FDA approval described above as well as risks attributable to the satisfaction of local regulations in foreign jurisdictions. Moreover, the time required to obtain approval from foreign regulatory agencies may differ from that required to obtain FDA approval. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities outside the United States and vice versa. Successful completion of clinical trials is a prerequisite to submitting a marketing application to the FDA and similar marketing applications to comparable foreign regulatory authorities, for each product candidate and, consequently, the ultimate approval and commercial marketing of any product candidates. We may experience negative or inconclusive results, which may result in our deciding, or our being required by regulators, to conduct additional clinical studies or trials or abandon some or all of our product development programs, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Any topline data or interim analyses from our nonclinical studies and clinical trials that may be announced or published from time to time may change as more data becomes available and will remain subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data.

We have disclosed interim analyses of certain ongoing clinical trials and may continue to disclose publicly interim or topline data from its nonclinical studies and clinical trials in the future. These interim updates will be based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions will be subject to change following a more comprehensive review of the data related to the particular study or trial. We will be required to make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. As a result, the interim or topline results that we may report might differ from future results of the same studies or trials, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Interim and topline data will remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the data we previously published. As a result, any interim or topline data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Interim data from clinical trials that we may complete will be subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data becomes available.

Further, others, including regulatory agencies, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the value of the particular program, the approvability or commercialization of the particular product candidate and us in general. In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical trial is based on what is typically extensive information, investors or others may not agree with what we determine is material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure, and any information we determine not to disclose may ultimately be deemed significant with respect to future decisions, conclusions, views, activities or otherwise regarding a particular product candidate or our business. If the interim or topline data that we report differ from actual results, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for, and commercialize, our product candidate may be harmed, which could harm our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition.

The regulatory approval processes of the FDA, EMA and comparable foreign authorities are lengthy, time-consuming and inherently unpredictable. If we are not able to obtain required regulatory approval for REACT, our lead product candidate, or any of our future product candidates, our business may be materially and adversely affected.

The time required to obtain approval or other marketing authorizations by the FDA, EMA and comparable foreign authorities is unpredictable, and it typically takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials and depends upon numerous factors, including the substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. In addition, approval policies, regulations, and the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions. We have not obtained regulatory approval for any product candidate, and it is possible that we may never obtain regulatory approval for any product candidates we may seek to develop in the future. Neither we nor any current or future collaborator is permitted to market any biologic product candidates in the United States until we receive regulatory approval of a BLA from the FDA, and we cannot market it in the European Union until we receive approval from the FDA or approval for a MAA from the EMA, or other required regulatory approval in other countries. To date, we have had only limited discussions with the regulatory agencies of the United States, the European Union, Argentina, Israel, Canada and Brazil regarding clinical development programs or regulatory approval for any product candidate within such jurisdictions.

Prior to obtaining approval to commercialize any biologic product candidate in the United States or abroad, we must demonstrate with substantial evidence from well-controlled clinical trials, and to the satisfaction of the FDA, EMA or other foreign regulatory agencies, that such product candidates are safe and effective for their intended uses. Results from nonclinical or preclinical studies and clinical trials may be interpreted differently by different regulatory agencies. Even if we believe the nonclinical or clinical data for REACT are promising, such data may be insufficient to support approval by the FDA and other regulatory authorities. The FDA may also require us to conduct additional nonclinical studies or clinical trials for REACT either prior to or after approval, or it may object to elements of our clinical development programs.

REACT could fail to receive regulatory approval for many reasons, including the following:

Of the large number of product candidates developed by biologics manufacturers, only a small percentage successfully complete the FDA or foreign regulatory approval processes and are commercialized. The lengthy approval and marketing authorization process as well as the unpredictability of future clinical trial results may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval and marketing authorization to market REACT or any of our future product candidates, which would significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We have invested a significant portion of our time and financial resources in the development of REACT. Our business is dependent on our ability to successfully complete nonclinical and clinical development of, obtain regulatory approval for, and, if approved, successfully commercialize REACT and any future product candidates in a timely manner.

Even if we eventually complete clinical testing and receive approval of a BLA or foreign marketing application for REACT or any future product candidates, the FDA, EMA or the applicable foreign regulatory agency may grant approval or other marketing authorization contingent on the performance of costly additional clinical trials, including post-marketing clinical trials. The FDA, EMA or the applicable foreign regulatory agency also may approve or authorize for marketing a product candidate for a more limited indication or patient population than we originally request, and the FDA, EMA or applicable foreign regulatory agency may not approve or authorize the labeling that we believe is necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of a product candidate. Any delay in obtaining, or inability to obtain, applicable regulatory approval or other marketing authorization would delay or prevent commercialization of that product candidate and would materially adversely impact our business and prospects.

In addition, the FDA, EMA and other regulatory authorities may change their policies, issue additional regulations or revise existing regulations, or take other actions, which may prevent or delay approval of our future product candidates on a timely basis. Such policy or regulatory changes could impose additional requirements upon us that could delay our ability to obtain approvals, increase the costs of compliance or restrict our ability to maintain any marketing authorizations we may have obtained.

Our nonclinical studies and clinical trials may fail to demonstrate substantial evidence of the safety and efficacy of REACT or our future product candidates, or serious adverse or unacceptable side effects may be identified during the development of REACT or any of our future product candidates, which could prevent, delay or limit the scope of regulatory approval of REACT or any of our future product candidates, limit their commercialization, increase our costs or necessitate the abandonment or limitation of the development of REACT or our future product candidates.

To obtain the requisite regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of REACT and any of our future product candidates, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive nonclinical testing and clinical trials that our product candidates are safe, pure and potent for use in each target indication. Nonclinical testing and clinical trials are expensive and time consuming, and their outcomes are inherently uncertain. Failures can occur at any time during the development process. The outcome of nonclinical studies and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the results of later clinical trials, and interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. Moreover, nonclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses. Many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their product candidates.

We may fail to demonstrate with substantial evidence from adequate and well-controlled trials, and to the satisfaction of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, that REACT is safe and potent for its intended uses.

Possible adverse side effects that could occur with treatment with autologous cell therapy products include thrombocytopenia, chills, anemia, febrile neutropenia, diarrhea, neutropenia, vomiting, hypotension, dyspnea, cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity. Side effects may be unrecognized and mismanaged by medical personnel and considered unrelated due to unfamiliarity with the REACT cell-based treatments. REACT treatment necessitates a renal biopsy to obtain tissue to manufacture the bioactive component and subsequent injections to deposit the REACT product into the kidney. Each intervention poses well-known risks of adverse events such as renal bleeding, cortical scarring, decline in kidney function or other adverse events that may require hospitalization, blood transfusion or angiographic intervention.

In the RMCL-002 trial, which used a different formulation of the REACT product and a different procedure than that presently used in our Phase 3 trials, one participant experienced serious adverse events that included scarring or fibrosis and a decrease in kidney function. A second participant experienced decreased kidney blood flow observed on computed tomography (“CT”) imaging and a decrease in kidney function. If other adverse events, or other unexpected serious adverse events, occur, our clinical trials could be suspended or terminated. If we cannot demonstrate that adverse events experienced by subjects enrolled in our current and planned clinical trials were not caused by the REACT product candidate or procedure, the FDA, EMA or other foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of, or deny approval of, our product candidate for any or all targeted indications. Even if we are able to demonstrate that serious adverse events experienced by subjects enrolled in our current and planned clinical trials are not product-related, such occurrences could affect patient recruitment or the ability of

enrolled subjects to complete the trial. Moreover, if we elect, or are required, to not initiate, delay, suspend or terminate any future clinical trial of any of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of such product candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate product revenues from any of these product candidates may be delayed or eliminated. Any of these occurrences may harm our ability to develop other product candidates, and may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Furthermore, if REACT or any of our future product candidates is associated with undesirable effects in nonclinical studies or clinical trials or have characteristics that are unexpected, we may decide or be required to perform additional nonclinical studies or to halt or delay further clinical development of our product candidates or to limit their development to more narrow uses or subpopulations in which the undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe, or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective, which may limit the commercial expectations for the product candidate, if approved. The FDA, EMA, and other health authorities, an IRB, or an IEC may also require that we suspend, discontinue, or limit our clinical trials based on safety information, or that we conduct additional animal or human studies regarding the safety and efficacy of our product candidates which we have not planned or anticipated. Such findings could further result in regulatory authorities failing to provide marketing authorization for our product candidates or limiting the scope of the approved indication, if approved. Many product candidates that initially showed promise in early stage testing have later been found to cause side effects that prevented further development of the product candidate.

Additionally, if REACT or any of our future product candidates receives marketing approval, and we or others identify unacceptable side effects caused by such products, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

There can be no assurance that we will resolve any issues related to any product-related adverse events to the satisfaction of the FDA or foreign regulatory agencies in a timely manner or at all. Moreover, any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the particular product candidate, if approved, and could significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects.

Negative public opinion and increased regulatory scrutiny of autologous cell therapy using REACT may adversely impact the development or commercial success of our current and future product candidates.

The clinical and commercial success of REACT will depend in part on public acceptance of the use of autologous cell therapy for treatment of kidney disease. Any adverse public attitudes about the use of REACT may adversely impact our ability to enroll clinical trials. Moreover, our success will depend upon physicians prescribing, and their patients being willing to receive, treatments that involve the use of product candidates we may develop in lieu of, or in addition to, existing treatments with which they are already familiar and for which greater clinical data may be available.

More restrictive government regulations or negative public opinion would have a negative effect on our business or financial condition and may delay or impair the development and commercialization of REACT or any of our future product candidates or demand for any products once approved. Adverse events in our or others’ clinical trials, even if not ultimately attributable to our product candidates, and the resulting publicity could result in increased governmental regulation, unfavorable public perception, potential regulatory delays in the testing or approval of REACT or our future product candidates, stricter labeling requirements for those product candidates that are approved and a decrease in demand for any such product candidates, all of which would have a negative impact on our business and operations.

We are conducting our first Phase 3 clinical trials and may be unable to successfully complete them or any future clinical trials.

The conduct of a Phase 3 clinical trial is a complicated process. Although members of our management team have conducted Phase 3 clinical trials in the past while employed at other companies, we as a company are currently conducting our first Phase 3 development program, and as a result may require more time and incur greater costs than we anticipate. Failure to include the correct treatment regimen, complete, or delays in, our Phase 3 clinical trials could prevent us from or delay us in commencing

future clinical trials for REACT, obtaining regulatory approval of and commercializing REACT, which would adversely impact our financial performance. In addition, some of our competitors are currently conducting clinical trials for product candidates that treat the same indications as REACT, and patients who are otherwise eligible for our clinical trials may instead enroll in clinical trials of our competitors’ product candidates.

We have and may continue to encounter difficulties enrolling patients in our clinical trials, and our clinical development activities have been and may continue to be delayed or otherwise adversely affected.

Successful and timely completion of clinical trials will require that we enroll a sufficient number of patients. Patient enrollment, a significant factor in the timing of clinical trials, is affected by many factors, including the size and nature of the patient population and competition for patients eligible for our clinical trials with competitors which may have ongoing clinical trials for product candidates that are under development to treat the same indications as one or more of our product candidates, or approved products for the conditions for which we are developing our product candidates.

Clinical trials may be subject to delays as a result of patient enrollment taking longer than anticipated or greater than anticipated subject withdrawal. We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials for REACT or our future product candidates if we are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials as required by the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities. We cannot predict how successful we will be at enrolling subjects in future clinical trials. The enrollment of patients depends on many factors, including: