Applied DNA Sciences (APDN) Risk Analysis

Since a primary focus of our business will be contract manufacturing of synthetic DNA for use as critical starting materials and/or incorporation into a biologic, drug substance or drug product, it will be critical for us to be able to produce sufficient quantities of materials required for the manufacture of our product candidates or the product candidates of our collaborators or customers for preclinical testing and clinical trials, in compliance with applicable regulatory and quality standards. If we are unable to provide such manufacturing supplies or fail to do so on commercially-reasonable terms, we may not be able to successfully produce sufficient supply of product candidate(s) or we may be delayed in doing so. Such failure or substantial delay could materially harm our business. Our customers will rely on us for synthetic DNA and other biological materials that are used in their discovery and development programs. These materials can be difficult to produce and occasionally have variability from the product specifications. Any disruption in the supply of these biological materials consistent with our applicable product specifications could materially adversely affect our business. Although we have control processes and screening procedures, biological materials are susceptible to damage and contamination and may contain active pathogens. We may also have lower yields in manufacturing batches, which can increase our costs and slow our development timelines. Improper storage of these materials, by us or any third-party storage facilities, may require us to destroy some of our biological raw materials or product candidates. We also face risks that we may fail to synthesize and manufacture our customers' product candidates in accordance with their product specifications, and the possibility of termination or nonrenewal of the agreement by our customers at a time that is costly or damaging to us. In addition, the FDA and other regulatory authorities require that our products be manufactured according to GMP and similar foreign standards relating to methods, facilities, and controls used in the manufacturing, processing, and packing of the product, which are intended to ensure that biological and drug products are safe and that they consistently meet applicable requirements and specifications. Depending on the type and intended use of the synthetic DNA produced by the Company we may be required to register our facilities and list our products manufactured after beginning manufacturing and then annually thereafter with the FDA and certain state and foreign agencies. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve our customers' product candidates at any of our proposed contract manufacturer's facilities, or if we fail to maintain a compliance status acceptable to the FDA or a comparable foreign authority, our customers may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to supply our customers' product candidates, if approved. Any discovery of problems with a product, or a manufacturing or laboratory facility used by us or our strategic partners, may result in restrictions on the product or on the manufacturing or laboratory facility, including marketed product recall, suspension of manufacturing, product seizure, or a voluntary withdrawal of the drug from the market. We may have little to no control regarding the occurrence of such incidents. If we were unable to provide a solution in time, our customers' clinical trials could be delayed, thereby limiting our commercial activities associated with those products. The sale of our customers' products could contain other defects could adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations. Any failure by us or another third-party manufacturers to comply with applicable GMP regulations or failure to scale up manufacturing processes, including any failure to deliver sufficient quantities of synthetic DNA in a timely manner, could lead to a delay in, or failure to obtain, regulatory approval of any of our customers' candidates and, therefore, affect our business. Some pharmaceutical manufacturers are also subject to extensive pre- and post-marketing oversight by the FDA and comparable regulatory authorities in the jurisdictions where the product is being studied or marketed, which include periodic unannounced and announced inspections by the FDA to assess compliance with GMP requirements. If we are a registered facility and an FDA inspection of our facilities reveals conditions that the FDA determines not to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, the FDA may issue observations through a Notice of Inspectional Observations or a "Form FDA 483". If observations in the Form FDA 483 are not addressed in a timely manner and to the FDA's satisfaction, the FDA may issue a Warning Letter or pursue other forms of enforcement action. Any failure by us or other contract manufacturers to comply with GMP or to provide adequate and timely corrective actions in response to deficiencies identified in a regulatory inspection could result in enforcement action that could impact our ability to attract and maintain other contract manufacturing arrangements or lead to a shortage of our customers' products and harm our business, including withdrawal of approvals previously granted, seizure, injunction or other civil or criminal penalties. The failure of us or another manufacturer to address any concerns raised by the FDA or foreign regulators could also lead to plant shutdown or the delay or withholding of product approval by the FDA in additional indications, or by foreign regulators in any indication. Certain countries may impose additional requirements on the manufacturing of drug products or drug substances, on us as contract manufacturers, as part of the regulatory approval process for products in such countries. The failure by us or other third-party manufacturers to satisfy such requirements could impact our ability to obtain or maintain contract manufacturing arrangements with our customers in one or more countries. Our business also depends on the ability of our collaborators and customers to manufacture the drug or biologic products that incorporate our products. If the FDA determines that our collaborators and customers are not in compliance with FDA laws and regulations, including those governing GMP regulations, the FDA may deny NDA or BLA approval until the deficiencies are corrected. Even if our collaborators or customers obtain regulatory approval for any of their product candidates, there is no assurance that they will be able to manufacture the approved product to specifications acceptable to the FDA or other regulatory authorities, to produce it in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements for the potential launch of the product or to meet potential future demand. If our collaborators or customers are unable to produce sufficient quantities for clinical trials or for commercialization, commercialization efforts would be impaired, which would have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

We are exposed to the risk of fraud, misconduct or other illegal activity by our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners, customers and vendors. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and negligent conduct that fails to: comply with applicable laws and regulations of the FDA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities; provide true, complete and accurate information to the FDA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities; comply with manufacturing standards we have established; comply with healthcare fraud and abuse laws in the United States and similar foreign fraudulent misconduct laws; or report financial information or data accurately or to disclose unauthorized activities to us. If our customers obtain FDA approval of any of their products and begin commercializing those products in the United States, our potential exposure under such laws may increase significantly, and our costs associated with compliance with such laws as a result of our relationship with our customers may also increase. We have adopted a code of business conduct and ethics, but it is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct by employees and third parties, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions.

The DNA produced via our Therapeutic DNA Production Services may be incorporated into our customers' products in the drug and/or biologic markets that are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory agencies in the United States and by comparable authorities in other countries. In the United States, to obtain approval from the FDA to market any future drug or biologic product that incorporates or utilizes our Therapeutic DNA Production Services, our collaborators or customers will be required to submit an NDA or BLA. The process of obtaining such regulatory approvals is expensive, often takes many years if approval is obtained at all, and can vary substantially based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidate involved. Changes in the regulatory approval process during the development period, changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or changes in the regulatory review process may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. There is no guarantee that our collaborators and customers will ever be successful in obtaining regulatory approval for any product that incorporates our products or technology. Even if regulatory approval is received, the manufacturing processes, post approval clinical data, labeling, advertising and promotional activities for any such product will be subject to continual requirements of and review by the FDA and other regulatory bodies. Our business may be materially harmed by our collaborators' and customers' inability to obtain or maintain regulatory approvals for their products of their failure to comply with applicable regulations. In addition, we will be dependent on, and have no control over, consumer demand for the products into which our LineaDNA technology is incorporated. Consumer demand for our collaborators' and customers' products could be adversely affected by, among other things, delays in health regulatory approval, the loss of patent and other intellectual property rights protection, the emergence of competing products, including generic drugs or biosimilars, the degree to which private and government drug plans subsidize payment for a particular product and changes in the marketing strategies for such products. The healthcare industry has changed significantly over time, and we expect the industry to continue to evolve. Some of these changes may have a material adverse effect on our collaborators and customers and thus may have a material adverse effect on our business. If the products into which our LineaDNA is utilized or incorporated do not gain market acceptance, our revenues and profitability may be adversely affected.

The synthetic DNA industry is characterized by rapid and significant technological changes, frequent new product introductions and enhancements and evolving industry demands and standards. Our future success will depend on our ability to continually improve the services we are developing and producing, to develop and introduce new services that address the evolving needs of our customers on a timely and cost-effective basis and to pursue new market opportunities that develop as a result of technological and scientific advances. These new market opportunities may be outside the scope of our proven expertise or in areas which have unproven market demand, and the utility and value of new products and services developed by us may not be accepted in the markets served by the new services. Our inability to gain market acceptance of existing products and services in new markets or market acceptance of new products and services could harm our future operating results. Our future success also depends on our ability to manufacture these new and improved products and services to meet customer demand in a timely and cost-effective manner, including our ability to resolve manufacturing issues that may arise as we commence production of any new products and services we develop. In addition, there is extensive competition in the synthetic DNA industry, and our future success will depend on our ability to maintain a competitive position with respect to technological advances. Technological development by others may result in our technologies, as well as products developed using our technologies, becoming obsolete. Our ability to compete successfully will depend on our ability to develop proprietary technologies and services that are technologically superior to and/or are less expensive than our competitors' technologies and products. Our competitors may be able to develop competing and/or superior technologies and processes and compete more aggressively and sustain that competition over a longer period of time.

Our MDx Testing Services utilize LDTs developed and validated by the Company. ADCL is currently subject to NYSDOH oversight as a CLEP-permitted and CLIA-certified laboratory. Historically, the FDA has exercised enforcement discretion over most LDTs. On April 29, 2024, however, the FDA published a final rule on LDTs, in which the FDA outlines its plans to end enforcement discretion for many LDTs in five stages over a four-year period. In Phase 1 (effective May 6, 2025), clinical laboratories running LDTs will be required to comply with medical device (adverse event) reporting and correction/removal reporting requirements, as well as requirements for maintenance of complaint files under the FDA's quality systems regulation (QSR). In Phase 2 (effective May 6, 2026), clinical laboratories will be required to comply with all other device requirements (e.g., registration/listing, labeling, investigational use), except for the remaining QSR requirements and premarket review. In Phase 3 (effective May 6, 2027), clinical laboratories will be required to comply with all remaining applicable QSR requirements. In Phase 4 (effective November 6, 2027), clinical laboratories will be required to comply with premarket review requirements for high-risk tests (i.e., tests subject to the premarket approval (PMA) requirement). Finally, in Phase 5 (effective May 6, 2028), clinical laboratories will be required to comply with premarket review requirements for moderate- and low-risk tests (i.e., tests subject to the de novo or 510(k) requirement). Under the final rule, several types of tests will be eligible for some degree of continued enforcement discretion. For example, LDTs approved by the New York State Department of Health will be exempt from premarket review requirements but will remain subject to the requirements of Phases 1 through 3. Similarly, LDTs first marketed prior to May 6, 2024 that are not subsequently modified, or are modified only in certain limited ways, will be exempt from the premarket review and most quality systems requirements, but will remain subject to the requirements of Phases 1 and 2. The FDA notes, however, that it retains discretion to pursue enforcement action for violations of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act at any time and intends to do so when appropriate. The FDA further explains that it may update any of the enforcement discretion policies set forth in the final rule as circumstances warrant or if the circumstances that inform those policies change, consistent with the FDA's good guidance practices. Multiple lawsuits have been filed challenging the LDT final rule, in which the plaintiffs argue FDA lacks authority to regulate LDTs as medical devices. We cannot predict the likelihood of success of these lawsuits at this time. Congress is also working on legislative language that, if enacted, would clarify the FDA's authority with respect to LDTs. In this regard, most recently, the "Verifying Accurate Leading-edge IVCT Development Act," or VALID Act, was first introduced in March 2020, and most recently reintroduced in March 2023. The bill proposes a risk-based approach that would subject many LDTs to FDA regulation by creating a new in vitro clinical test, or IVCT, category of regulated products. As proposed, the bill would grandfather many existing LDTs from the proposed premarket approval, quality systems, and labeling requirements, respectively, but would require such tests to comply with other regulatory requirements (e.g., registration and listing, adverse event reporting). To market a high-risk IVCT, reasonable assurance of analytical and clinical validity for the intended use would be needed to be established. Under VALID, a precertification process would be established that would allow a laboratory to establish that the facilities, methods, and controls used in the development of its IVCTs meet quality system requirements. If pre-certified, certain low-risk IVCTs developed by the laboratory and falling within the scope of a certification order from FDA would not be subject to pre-market review. The new regulatory framework would include quality control and post-market reporting requirements. The FDA would have the authority to withdraw approvals for IVCTs for various reasons, including (for example) if there were a reasonable likelihood that the test would cause death or serious adverse health consequences. However, we cannot predict if this (or any other bill) will be enacted in its current (or any other) form and cannot quantify the effect of such proposals on our business.

Litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights is extensive in the drug and biotechnology industry. In the event of an intellectual property dispute, we may be forced to litigate. This litigation could involve proceedings instituted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office or the International Trade Commission, as well as proceedings brought directly by affected third parties. Intellectual property litigation can be extremely expensive, and these expenses, as well as the consequences should we not prevail, could seriously harm our business. If a third party claims an intellectual property right to technology we use, we might need to discontinue an important product or product line, alter our products and processes, pay license fees or cease our affected business activities. Although we might under these circumstances attempt to obtain a license to this intellectual property, we may not be able to do so on favorable terms, or at all. Furthermore, a third party may claim that we are using inventions covered by the third party's patent rights and may go to court to stop us from engaging in our normal operations and activities, including making or selling our products. These lawsuits are costly and could affect our results of operations and divert the attention of managerial and technical personnel. A court may decide that we are infringing the third party's patents and would order us to stop the activities covered by the patents. In addition, a court may order us to pay the other party damages for having violated the other party's patents. The drug and biotechnology industry has produced a proliferation of patents, and it is not always clear to industry participants, including us, which patents cover various types of products or methods of use. The coverage of patents is subject to interpretation by the courts, and the interpretation is not always uniform. If we are sued for patent infringement, we would need to demonstrate that our products or methods of use either do not infringe the patent claims of the relevant patent and/or that the patent claims are invalid, and we may not be able to do this. Proving invalidity, in particular, is difficult since it requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of validity enjoyed by issued patents. Because some patent applications in the United States may be maintained in secrecy until the patents are issued, because patent applications in the United States and many foreign jurisdictions are typically not published until eighteen months after filing, and because publications in the scientific literature often lag behind actual discoveries, we cannot be certain that others have not filed patent applications for technology covered by our or our licensor's issued patents or pending applications or that we or our licensors were the first to invent the technology. During the ordinary course of our business, we do not conduct "prior art" searches before filing a patent application. Our competitors may have filed, and may in the future file, patent applications covering technology similar to ours. Any such patent application may have priority over our or our licensors' patent applications and could further require us to obtain rights to issued patents covering such technologies. If another party has filed a United States patent application on inventions similar to ours, we may have to participate in an interference proceeding declared by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") to determine priority of invention in the United States. The costs of these proceedings could be substantial, and it is possible that such efforts would be unsuccessful, resulting in a loss of our United States patent position with respect to such inventions. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources. In addition, any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our operations. Moreover, the scope, validity and enforceability of granted claims can be challenged in a variety of proceedings. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the relevant patent office, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. Third parties may also raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, outside of the context of litigation per se. Such mechanisms include ex parte re-examination, inter partes review, post-grant review, derivation and pre- and post-grant opposition proceedings. Furthermore, the courts have held that patent claims that recite laws of nature are not patent eligible, but patent claims that recite sufficient additional features that provide practical assurance that claimed processes are genuine inventive applications of those laws may be patent eligible. But what constitutes a "sufficient" additional feature is the subject of uncertainty. The USPTO has published and continues to revise and publish guidelines for patent examiners to apply when examining claims for patent eligibility as the case law continues to evolve. Patent eligibility is also an area of the law under continual development in other jurisdictions around the world. In addition, U.S. Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained.

In late February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine, significantly amplifying already existing geopolitical tensions among Russia and other countries in the region and in the west, including the United States. Russia's invasion, the responses of countries and political bodies to Russia's actions, the larger overarching tensions, and Ukraine's military response and the potential for wider conflict have resulted in inflation, financial market volatility and capital markets disruption, potentially increasing in magnitude, and could have severe adverse effects on regional and global economic markets and international relations. The extent and duration of the military action, sanctions and resulting market disruptions are impossible to predict, but could be substantial. Further, on October 7, 2023, Hamas, a U.S. designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, launched terrorist attacks against Israel. Israel then declared war on Hamas and there is currently an armed conflict in Israel and the Gaza Strip. At the same time, and because of the war declaration against Hamas, the clash between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon has escalated to an armed conflict and there is a high possibility that it will turn into a greater regional conflict in the future. The extent and duration of the wars in Ukraine, Israel/Gaza and Lebanon, as well as expanding geopolitical tensions and any resulting market disruptions could be significant and could potentially have a substantial impact on the global economy, market volatility and our business for an unknown period of time. Any of the above-mentioned factors could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.