Seres Therapeutics (MCRB) Risk Analysis

We have applied for Breakthrough Therapy and Qualified Infectious Disease Product designations for SER-155 in allo-HSCT and may seek such designations for future product candidates. A Breakthrough Therapy is defined as a drug or biologic that is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug or biologic may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed in early clinical development. For drugs or biologics that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development. Drugs designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA also receive all of the Fast Track program features, including eligibility for rolling review of the associated marketing application. Designation as a Breakthrough Therapy is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe one of our product candidates meets the criteria for designation as a Breakthrough Therapy, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. The receipt of a Breakthrough Therapy designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, not all products designated as breakthrough therapies ultimately will be shown to have the substantial improvement over available therapies suggested by the preliminary clinical evidence at the time of designation. As a result, if a Breakthrough Therapy designation for any future designation we receive is no longer supported by subsequent data, the FDA may rescind the designation.

We are using our reverse translational platform to develop live biotherapeutic candidates. We are at an early stage of development of our product candidates and our platform may never lead to approvable or marketable drugs. We are developing product candidates that are designed to reduce infection and treat diseases where the microbiome is implicated. We may have problems applying our technologies to these areas, and our product candidates may not be effective in reducing infection and disease. Our product candidates may not be suitable for clinical development, including as a result of their harmful side effects, limited efficacy or other characteristics that indicate that they are unlikely to be products that will receive marketing approval and, if approved, achieve market acceptance. The success of our product candidates will depend on several factors, including the following: - completion of preclinical studies and clinical trials with positive results;- receipt of marketing approvals from applicable regulatory authorities;- obtaining and maintaining patent and trade secret protection and regulatory exclusivity for our product candidates;- making arrangements with third-party manufacturers for, or establishing our own, commercial manufacturing capabilities;- launching commercial sales of our product candidates, if and when approved, whether alone or in collaboration with others;- entering into new collaborations throughout the development process as appropriate, from preclinical studies through to commercialization;- acceptance of our product candidates, if and when approved, by patients, the medical community and third-party payors;- effectively competing with other therapies;- obtaining and maintaining coverage and adequate reimbursement by third-party payors, including government payors, for our product candidates, if approved;- protecting our rights in our intellectual property portfolio;- operating without infringing or violating the valid and enforceable patents or other intellectual property of third parties;- maintaining a continued acceptable safety profile of our product candidates, if approved, following approval; and - maintaining and growing an organization of scientists and business people who can develop and commercialize our product candidates and technology. If we or our collaborators do not successfully develop and commercialize our product candidates we will not be able to obtain product revenue or collaboration profit in future periods, which likely would result in significant harm to our financial position and adversely affect our stock price.

Successful and timely completion of clinical trials will require that we enroll a sufficient number of patient candidates. These trials and other trials we conduct may be subject to delays for a variety of reasons, including as a result of patient enrollment taking longer than anticipated, patient withdrawal or adverse events. These types of developments could cause us to delay the trial or halt further development. Our clinical trials will compete with other clinical trials that are in the same therapeutic areas as our product candidates, and this competition reduces the number and types of patients available to us, as some patients who might have opted to enroll in our trials may instead opt to enroll in a trial being conducted by one of our competitors. Because the number of qualified clinical investigators and clinical trial sites is limited, we expect to conduct some of our clinical trials at the same clinical trial sites that some of our competitors use, which will reduce the number of patients who are available for our clinical trials at such clinical trial sites. In addition, there may be limited patient pools from which to draw for clinical studies. In addition to the rarity of some diseases, the eligibility criteria of our clinical studies will further limit the pool of available study participants as we will require that patients have specific characteristics that we can measure or to assure their disease is either severe enough or not too advanced to include them in a study. Patient enrollment is also affected by other factors including: - the severity of the disease under investigation;- the patient eligibility criteria for the study in question;- the perceived risks and benefits of the product candidate under study;- the availability of other treatments for the disease under investigation;- the existence of competing clinical trials;- the efforts to facilitate timely enrollment in clinical trials;- our payments for conducting clinical trials;- the patient referral practices of physicians;- the burden, or perceived burden, of the clinical study;- the ability to monitor patients adequately during and after treatment; and - the proximity and availability of clinical trial sites for prospective patients. Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients for our clinical trials or a delayed rate of enrollment would result in significant delays and could require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether.

From time to time, we may publicly disclose interim, top-line or preliminary data from our preclinical studies and clinical trials, which is based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change following a more comprehensive review of the data related to the particular study or trial. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. As a result, the top-line or preliminary results that we report may differ from future results of the same studies, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Top-line or preliminary data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the top-line or preliminary data we previously published. As a result, top-line and preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Adverse differences between interim data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects. Further, disclosure of interim data by us or by our competitors could result in volatility in the price of our common stock. Further, others, including regulatory authorities, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the value of the particular program, the approvability or commercialization of the particular product candidate or product and our company in general. In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical trial is based on what is typically extensive information, and you or others may not agree with what we determine is material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure. If the interim, top-line or preliminary data that we report differ from actual results, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for, and commercialize, our product candidates may be harmed, which could harm our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition.

Our product candidates are based on live biotherapeutics, a novel class of biological drugs, which are designed to treat disease by modulating the microbiome to restore health by repairing the function of a disrupted microbiome to a non-disease state. To our knowledge, VOWST is the first oral product based on this approach to receive FDA approval. We cannot be certain that our approach will lead to the development of additional approvable or marketable products or that we will be able to manufacture at commercial scale. Finally, the FDA or other regulatory authorities may lack experience in evaluating the safety and efficacy of novel product candidates based on live biotherapeutics, which could result in a longer than expected regulatory review process, increase our expected development costs and delay or prevent any potential future commercialization of our product candidates.

As is the case with other biotechnology companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biotechnology industry involves both technological and legal complexity, and is therefore costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. In addition, patent reform legislation could further increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents. On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, was signed into law. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. The USPTO developed new regulations and procedures to govern administration of the Leahy-Smith Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the Leahy-Smith Act, in particular the first to file provisions, became effective on March 16, 2013. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO after that date but before us could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by the third party. This will require us to be cognizant going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application. Thus, for our U.S. patent applications containing a priority claim after March 16, 2013, there is a greater level of uncertainty in the patent law. Moreover, some of the patent applications in our portfolio will be subject to examination under the pre-Leahy- Smith Act law and regulations, while other patent applications in our portfolio will be subject to examination under the law and regulations, as amended by the Leahy-Smith Act. This introduces additional complexities into the prosecution and management of our portfolio. In addition, the Leahy-Smith Act limits where a patentee may file a patent infringement suit and provides opportunities for third parties to challenge any issued patent in the USPTO. These provisions apply to all of our U.S. patents, even those filed before March 16, 2013. Because of a lower evidentiary standard in USPTO proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in U.S. federal court necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a federal court action. Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims because it may be easier for them to do so relative to challenging the patent in a federal court action. It is not clear what, if any, impact the Leahy-Smith Act will have on the operation of our business. However, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition. In addition, Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. From time to time, the Supreme Court, other federal courts, Congress, or the USPTO, may change the standards of patentability and any such changes could have a negative impact on our business. A number of cases decided by the Supreme Court have involved questions of when claims reciting abstract ideas, laws of nature, natural phenomena and/or natural products are eligible for a patent, regardless of whether the claimed subject matter is otherwise novel and inventive. These cases include Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 12-398 (2013); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 13-298 (2014); and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 10-1150 (2012). In response to these cases, the USPTO has issued guidance to the examining corps. The USPTO first issued a memorandum reflecting the USPTO's interpretation of the cases related to patent eligibility of natural products on March 4, 2014, which it subsequently revised and expanded upon in several additional updates now incorporated into its Manual of Patent Examination Procedure. The USPTO's interpretation of the case law and new guidelines for examination may influence, possibly adversely, prosecution and defense of certain types of claims in our portfolio. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain future patents, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on these and other decisions by Congress, the federal courts and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change or be interpreted in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce any patents that may issue to us in the future. In addition, these events may adversely affect our ability to defend any patents that may issue in procedures in the USPTO or in courts.

Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other intellectual property protection in the United States and other countries with respect to our proprietary technology and product candidates. We seek to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our novel technologies and product candidates. We also rely on trade secrets to protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection. The patent prosecution process is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost, in a timely manner, or in all jurisdictions. Prosecution of our patent portfolio is at various stages. We have successfully obtained multiple patents (both U.S. and foreign) in some patent families. In others, prosecution is at an early stage (e.g., provisional or PCT stage). For many patent applications in our portfolio, we have filed national stage applications based on our Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, applications, thereby limiting the jurisdictions in which we can pursue patent protection for the various inventions claimed in those applications. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. It is possible that defects of form in the preparation or filing of our patents or patent applications may exist, or may arise in the future, such as, with respect to proper priority claims, inventorship, claim scope or patent term adjustments. If there are material defects in the form or preparation of our patents or patent applications, such patents or applications may be invalid and unenforceable. Moreover, our competitors may independently develop equivalent knowledge, methods and know-how. Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competition from third parties, which may have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition and operating results. We have obtained licenses from third parties and may obtain additional licenses and options in the future. In some circumstances, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, covering technology that we license from third parties. We may also require the cooperation of our licensors to enforce any licensed patent rights, and such cooperation may not be provided. Therefore, these patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. Moreover, if we do obtain necessary licenses, we will likely have obligations under those licenses, and any failure to satisfy those obligations could give our licensor the right to terminate the license. Termination of a necessary license could have a material adverse impact on our business. We have had in the past, and may have in the future, certain funding arrangements. Such funding arrangements impose various obligations on us, including reporting obligations, and may subject certain of our intellectual property, such as intellectual property made using the applicable funding, to the rights of the U.S. government under the Bayh-Dole Act. Any failure to comply with our obligations under a funding arrangement may have an adverse effect on our rights under the applicable agreement or our rights in the applicable intellectual property. Compliance with our obligations or the exercise by the government or other funder of its rights, may limit certain opportunities or otherwise have an adverse effect on our business. Our patent portfolio currently includes 21 active patent application families (which includes exclusive licenses to certain IP from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center). Of these, 20 applications have been nationalized and one is at the PCT stage. While we have obtained issuance of 31 U.S. patents, we cannot provide any assurances that any of our pending patent applications will mature into issued patents and, if they do, that such patents or our current patents will include claims with a scope sufficient to protect our product candidates or otherwise provide any competitive advantage. For example, we are pursuing claims to therapeutic, binary compositions of certain bacterial populations. Any claims that may issue may provide coverage for such binary compositions and/or their use. However, there can be no assurance that an alternative composition that may fall outside the scope of such claims will not be equally effective. Further, while our product candidates are made up of specific cultivated bacteria, third-party compositions may have greater complexity and variability (e.g., lot to lot variations), and it is possible that a patent claim may provide coverage for some but not all third-party compositions. These and other factors may provide opportunities for our competitors to design around our patents, should they issue. Moreover, other parties have developed technologies that may be related or competitive to our approach and may have filed or may file patent applications and may have received or may receive patents that may overlap or conflict with our patent applications, either by claiming similar methods or by claiming subject matter that could dominate our patent position or cover one or more of our product candidates. In addition, given the on-going prosecution of our portfolio, we continue development of our understanding of how patent offices react to our patent claims and whether they identify prior art of relevance that we have not already considered. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether we were the first to make the inventions claimed in any owned patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions, nor can we know whether those from whom we may license patents were the first to make the inventions claimed or were the first to file. For these and other reasons, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are subject to a level of uncertainty. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued which protect our technology or product candidates, in whole or in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection. We may be subject to third-party preissuance submissions of prior art to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, or in a foreign jurisdiction in which our applications are filed, or become involved in opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. For example, on April 25, 2017, we filed a notice of opposition in the European Patent Office challenging the validity of a patent issued to The University of Tokyo. See "-Third parties may initiate legal proceedings alleging that we are infringing their intellectual property rights, the outcome of which would be uncertain and could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business." The oral proceedings were held at the European Patent Office on February 18, 2019 and the Opposition Division required The University of Tokyo to narrow the scope of the claims of the patent. The University of Tokyo appealed certain aspects of the Opposition Division's decision, as did we and other opponents. On November 18, 2022, The University of Tokyo requested termination of the appeal proceeding and revocation of its patent. On December 19, 2022, the Opposition Division officially terminated the appeal proceeding, and European Patent No. 2 575 835 B1 has been revoked in its entirety. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our technology or product candidates and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize product candidates without infringing third-party patent rights. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates. Furthermore, an adverse decision in an interference proceeding can result in a third party receiving the patent right sought by us, which in turn could affect our ability to develop, market or otherwise commercialize our product candidates. The issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patents are subject to a level of uncertainty. The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. Due to legal standards relating to patentability, validity, enforceability and claim scope of patents covering biotechnological and pharmaceutical inventions, our ability to obtain, maintain and enforce patents is uncertain and involves complex legal and factual questions. Even if issued, a patent's validity, inventorship, ownership or enforceability is not conclusive. Accordingly, rights under any existing patent or any patents we might obtain or license may not cover our product candidates, or may not provide us with sufficient protection for our product candidates to afford a commercial advantage against competitive products or processes, including those from branded and generic pharmaceutical companies. The degree of future protection for our proprietary rights is uncertain, and we cannot ensure that: - any of our pending patent applications, if issued, will include claims having a scope sufficient to protect any products or product candidates;- any of our pending patent applications will issue as patents at all;- we will be able to successfully commercialize any of our product candidates, if approved, before our relevant patents expire;- we were the first to make the inventions covered by any existing patent and pending patent applications;- we were the first to file patent applications for these inventions;- others will not develop similar or alternative technologies that do not infringe or design around our patents;- others will not use pre-existing technology to effectively compete against us;- any of our patents, if issued, will be found to ultimately be valid and enforceable;- third parties will not compete with us in jurisdictions where we do not pursue and obtain patent protection;- we will be able to obtain and/or maintain necessary or useful licenses on reasonable terms or at all;- any patents issued to us will provide a basis for an exclusive market for our commercially viable products, will provide us with any competitive advantages or will not be challenged by third parties;- we will develop additional proprietary technologies or product candidates that are separately patentable; or - our commercial activities or products will not infringe upon the patents or proprietary rights of others. Any litigation to enforce or defend our patent rights, even if we were to prevail, could be costly and time-consuming and would divert the attention of our management and key personnel from our business operations. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded if we were to prevail may not be commercially meaningful. Even if we are successful, domestic or foreign litigation, or USPTO or foreign patent office proceedings, may result in substantial costs and distraction to our management. We may not be able, alone or with our licensors or potential collaborators, to prevent misappropriation of our proprietary rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect such rights as fully as in the United States. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation or other proceedings, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation or other proceedings. In addition, during the course of this kind of litigation or proceedings, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments or public access to related documents. If investors perceive these results to be negative, the market price for our common stock could be significantly harmed.

In addition to seeking patents for some of our technology and product candidates, we also utilize our trade secrets, including unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information, to maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect these trade secrets, in part, by entering into non- disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to them, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties. We also seek to enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees, advisors and consultants. Despite these efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Our trade secrets may also be obtained by third parties by other means, such as breaches of our physical or computer security systems. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. Moreover, if any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position would be harmed.

Our commercial success depends upon our ability, and the ability of any collaborators, to develop, manufacture, market and sell our product candidates, if approved, and use our proprietary technologies without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. There is considerable intellectual property litigation in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. For example, on August 20, 2024, Vedanta Biosciences, Inc. and The University of Tokyo filed a complaint against us and Nestlé S.A., Nestlé Health Science S.A., Nestlé Health Science US Holdings, Inc. and SPN in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the making, sale and use of VOWST infringes on U.S. Patent Nos. 9,433,652, 9,662,381, 9,808,519, 10,555,978, and 11,090,343. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, fees, expenses and injunctive relief. We believe the complaint is without merit and intend to defend ourself vigorously against the claims. While we have not been held by any court to have infringed a third party's intellectual property rights, we cannot guarantee that our technology or our product candidates, or use of our product candidates do not infringe third-party patents. We are aware of numerous patents and pending applications owned by third parties in the fields in which we are developing product candidates, both in the United States and elsewhere. However, we may have failed to identify relevant third-party patents or applications. For example, applications filed before November 29, 2000 and certain applications filed after that date that will not be filed outside the United States remain confidential until patents issue. Moreover, it is difficult for industry participants, including us, to identify all third-party patent rights that may be relevant to our product candidates and technologies because patent searching is imperfect due to differences in terminology among patents, incomplete databases and the difficulty in assessing the meaning of patent claims. We may fail to identify relevant patents or patent applications or may identify pending patent applications of potential interest but incorrectly predict the likelihood that such patent applications may issue with claims of relevance to our technology or our product candidates. In addition, we may be unaware of one or more issued patents that would be infringed by the manufacture, sale or use of our product candidates, or we may incorrectly conclude that a third-party patent is invalid, unenforceable or not infringed by our activities. Additionally, pending patent applications that have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our technologies or our product candidates or the use of our product candidates. We are aware of several pending patent applications containing one or more claims that could be construed to cover some of our product candidates or technology, should those claims issue in their original form or in the form presently being pursued. In addition, we are aware of third-party patent families that include issued and allowed patents, including in the United States, including claims that, if valid and enforceable, could be construed to cover some of our product candidates or their methods of use. On April 25, 2017, we filed a notice of opposition in the European Patent Office challenging the validity of a patent issued to The University of Tokyo and requesting that it be revoked in its entirety for the reasons set forth in our opposition. The oral proceedings were held at the European Patent Office on February 18, 2019 and the Opposition Division required The University of Tokyo to narrow the scope of the claims of the patent. The University of Tokyo appealed certain aspects of the Oppositions Division's decision, as did we and other opponents. On November 18, 2022, The University of Tokyo requested termination of the appeal proceeding and revocation of its patent. On December 19, 2022, the Opposition Division officially terminated the appeal proceeding, and European Patent No. 2 575 835 B1 has been revoked in its entirety. The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. Other parties may allege that our product candidates, or the use of our technologies infringes patent claims or other intellectual property rights held by them or that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. We may become party to, or threatened with, future adversarial proceedings or litigation regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our product candidates and technology, including interference or derivation proceedings before the USPTO and similar bodies in other countries. Third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on existing intellectual property rights and intellectual property rights that may be granted in the future. If we were to challenge the validity of an issued U.S. patent in court, such as an issued U.S. patent of potential relevance to some of our product candidates or methods of use, we would need to overcome a statutory presumption of validity that attaches to every U.S. patent. This means that in order to prevail, we would have to present clear and convincing evidence as to the invalidity of the patent's claims. There is no assurance that a court would find in our favor on questions of infringement or validity. Patent and other types of intellectual property litigation can involve complex factual and legal questions, and their outcome is uncertain. If we are found or believe there is a risk we may be found, to infringe a third party's intellectual property rights, we could be required or may choose to obtain a license from such third party to continue developing and marketing our product candidates and technology. However, we may not be able to obtain any such license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. We could be forced, including by court order, to cease commercializing the infringing technology or product. In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys' fees if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing our product candidates or force us to cease some of our business operations, which could materially harm our business. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar negative impact on our business. Even if we are successful in these proceedings, we may incur substantial costs and divert management time and attention in pursuing these proceedings, which could have a material adverse effect on us. If we are unable to avoid infringing the patent rights of others, we may be required to seek a license, defend an infringement action or challenge the validity of the patents in court, or redesign our product candidates. Patent litigation is costly and time-consuming. We may not have sufficient resources to bring these actions to a successful conclusion. In addition, intellectual property litigation or claims could force us to do one or more of the following: - cease developing, selling or otherwise commercializing our product candidates;- pay substantial damages for past use of the asserted intellectual property;- obtain a license from the holder of the asserted intellectual property, which license may not be available on reasonable terms, if at all; and - in the case of trademark claims, redesign, or rename, some or all of our product candidates or other brands to avoid infringing the intellectual property rights of third parties, which may not be possible and, even if possible, could be costly and time-consuming. Any of these risks coming to fruition could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

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

It is our policy to enter into confidentiality and intellectual property assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, contractors and advisors. These agreements generally provide that inventions conceived by the party in the course of rendering services to us will be our exclusive property. However, these agreements may not be honored and may not effectively assign intellectual property rights to us. For example, even if we have a consulting agreement in place with an academic advisor pursuant to which such academic advisor is required to assign any inventions developed in connection with providing services to us, such academic advisor may not have the right to assign such inventions to us, as it may conflict with his or her obligations to assign all such intellectual property to his or her employing institution. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or ownership. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, valuable intellectual property. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

Many of our employees were previously employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. We may also engage advisors and consultants who are concurrently employed at universities or other organizations or who perform services for other entities. Although we try to ensure that our employees, advisors and consultants do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or our employees, advisors or consultants have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such party's former or current employer or in violation of an agreement with another party. Although we have no knowledge of any such claims being alleged to date, if such claims were to arise, litigation may be necessary to defend against any such claims. In addition, while it is our policy to require our employees, consultants, advisors and contractors who may be involved in the development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who in fact develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. Our and their assignment agreements may not be self-executing or may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property. Similarly, we may be subject to claims that an employee, advisor or consultant performed work for us that conflicts with that person's obligations to a third party, such as an employer, and thus, that the third party has an ownership interest in the intellectual property arising out of work performed for us. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. Although we have no knowledge of any such claims being alleged to date, if such claims were to arise, litigation may be necessary to defend against any such claims. If we fail in prosecuting or defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Even if we are successful in prosecuting or defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

Our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names, which we need to build name recognition among potential collaborators or customers in our markets of interest. At times, competitors may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. In addition, there could be potential trade name or trademark infringement claims brought by owners of other registered trademarks or trademarks that incorporate variations of our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, then we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected. Our efforts to enforce or protect our proprietary rights related to trademarks, trade secrets, domain names, copyrights or other intellectual property may be ineffective and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and could adversely impact our financial condition or results of operations.

If we or any collaborators are found to have improperly promoted off-label uses of approved products, including any of our product candidates that may be approved in the future, we may become subject to significant liability. The FDA and other regulatory authorities strictly regulate the promotional claims that may be made about prescription products, such as our product candidates, if approved. In particular, a product may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA or such other regulatory authorities as reflected in the product's approved labeling. Physicians may nevertheless prescribe a product candidate that is approved in future, if any, to their patients in a manner that is inconsistent with the approved label. If we or any collaborators are found to have promoted such off-label uses, we may become subject to significant liability. The U.S. federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion of off-label use and has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The FDA has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. If we cannot successfully manage the promotion of our product candidates, if approved, we could become subject to significant liability, which would materially adversely affect our business and financial condition.

In some countries, particularly the EU member states, the pricing of certain pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product. In addition, there can be considerable pressure by governments and other stakeholders on prices and reimbursement levels, including as part of cost containment measures. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after coverage and reimbursement have been obtained. Reference pricing used by various EU member states and parallel distribution or arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states, can further reduce prices. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our product candidate to other available therapies. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines but monitor and control company profits. Even if a pharmaceutical product obtains a marketing authorization in the EU, there can be no assurance that reimbursement for such product will be secured on a timely basis or at all. If coverage and reimbursement of our product candidates, if and when they are approved, are unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels that impacts our ability to compete with other products or our ability to recoup our costs of developing our product candidates, our business could be harmed, possibly materially.

Certain institutional investors, investor advocacy groups, investment funds, creditors and other influential financial market participants, as well as governments, regulators, customers, patients, employees and other stakeholders or third parties, have become increasingly focused on companies' ESG practices, including the impact of business on the environment and diversity, equity and inclusion matters. Certain organizations also provide ESG ratings, scores and benchmarking studies that assess companies' ESG practices. Although there are no universal standards for such ratings, scores or benchmarking studies, they are used by some investors to inform their investment and voting decisions. It is possible that our future stockholders or organizations that report on, rate or score ESG practices will not be satisfied with our ESG strategy or performance. Unfavorable press about or ratings or assessments of our ESG strategies or practices, regardless of whether or not we comply with applicable legal requirements, may lead to negative investor sentiment toward us, which may hinder the Company's access to capital. Our reputation could be damaged if we do not, or are perceived not to, meet evolving stakeholder demand with respect to ESG matters, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, profitability and cash flows. We may be criticized for our lack of ESG initiatives or goals or perceived as not taking sufficient action in connection with any of these matters. In turn, we may take certain actions, including the establishment of ESG-related goals or targets, to improve our ESG profile and/or respond to stakeholder demand; however, such actions may be costly or be subject to numerous conditions that are outside our control, and we cannot guarantee that we will meet these goals or targets or that such actions will have the desired effect even if met. Additionally, we and/or other parties in our value chain are subject to, or are expected to be subject to additional climate and other ESG-related obligations arising from legislation and regulation in the United States, the European Union and other jurisdictions, including new reporting requirements, even as the availability and quality of the information that may be required to comply with such laws and regulations remains limited. We expect for our compliance costs with these laws, regulations, and reporting requirements to increase in the future, and any failure, or perceived failure, by us to adhere to such laws, regulations, and reporting requirements, or meet evolving and varied stakeholder expectations and standards, could harm our business, reputation, financial condition, and operating results.

Our ability to commercialize any of our product candidates successfully will depend, in part, on the extent to which coverage and reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which medications they will pay for and impact reimbursement levels. Obtaining and maintaining adequate reimbursement for our product candidates may be difficult. We cannot be certain if and when we will obtain an adequate level of reimbursement for our product candidates by third-party payors. Even if we do obtain adequate levels of reimbursement, third-party payors, such as government or private healthcare insurers, carefully review, and increasingly question the coverage of, and challenge the prices charged for, drugs. Reimbursement rates from private health insurance companies vary depending on the company, the insurance plan and other factors. A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for drugs. We may also be required to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies to justify coverage and reimbursement or the level of reimbursement relative to other therapies. If coverage and reimbursement are not available or reimbursement is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval, and potential royalties resulting from the sales of those products may also be adversely impacted. There may be significant delays in obtaining reimbursement for newly approved drugs, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the drug is approved by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that a drug will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution. Interim reimbursement levels for new drugs, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the drug and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost treatment approaches and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Net prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement rates from both government-funded and private payors for any approved products that we develop could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize products and our overall financial condition. The regulations that govern marketing approvals, pricing, coverage and reimbursement for new drug products vary widely from country to country. Current and future legislation may significantly change the approval requirements in ways that could involve additional costs and cause delays in obtaining approvals. Some countries require approval of the sale price of a drug before it can be reimbursed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing or product licensing approval is granted. In some foreign markets, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control, including possible price reductions, even after initial approval is granted. As a result, we might obtain marketing approval for a product in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay our commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods, and negatively impact the revenues we are able to generate from the sale of the product in that country. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more product candidates, even if our product candidates obtain marketing approval. There can be no assurance that our product candidates, if they are approved for sale in the United States or in other countries, will be considered medically necessary for a specific indication or cost-effective, or that coverage or an adequate level of reimbursement will be available.

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. In the United States, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act, or collectively the ACA, is a sweeping law intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for the healthcare and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the health industry and impose additional health policy reforms. Among the provisions of the ACA of importance to our other potential product candidates are the following: - establishment of a new pathway for approval of lower-cost biosimilars to compete with biologic products, such as those we are developing or commercializing;- an annual, nondeductible fee payable by any entity that manufactures or imports specified branded prescription drugs and biologic agents;- an increase in the statutory minimum rebates a manufacturer must pay under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program;- a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices;- extension of manufacturers' Medicaid rebate liability;- expansion of eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs;- expansion of the entities eligible for discounts under the Public Health Service pharmaceutical pricing program;- a new requirement to annually report drug samples that manufacturers and distributors provide to physicians; and - a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research. Since its enactment, there have been judicial, executive and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. For example, the Budget Control Act of 2011, enacted in August 2011, required sequestration that included aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers, which went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments, will remain in effect through 2032, unless additional Congressional action is taken. Under current legislation, the actual reduction in Medicare payments will increase in future years of the sequester. On January 2, 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, and an increase in the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. Further, in March 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was signed into law, which, among other things, eliminated the statutory cap on drug manufacturers' Medicaid Drug Rebate Program rebate liability, effective January 1, 2024. Drug manufacturers' Medicaid Drug Rebate Program rebate liability was previously capped at 100% of the average manufacturer price for a covered outpatient drug. We expect that other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, more rigorous coverage criteria, new payment methodologies and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to price our product candidates, if and when they are approved, at what we consider to be a fair or competitive price, generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our product candidates, if approved. Moreover, there has recently been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products. Individual states in the United States have become increasingly active in implementing regulations designed to contain pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures. Most significantly, on August 16, 2022, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or the IRA, into law. This statute marks the most significant action by Congress with respect to the pharmaceutical industry since adoption of the ACA in 2010. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare (beginning in 2026), with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (beginning in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. HHS has and will continue to issue and update guidance as these programs are implemented. On August 29, 2023, HHS announced the list of the first ten drugs that will be subject to price negotiations, although the Medicare drug price negotiation program is currently subject to legal challenges. Legally mandated price controls on payment amounts by third-party payors or other restrictions could harm our ability to price our product candidates, if and when they are approved, appropriately, which could negatively impact our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. This could reduce the ultimate demand for our product candidates, if approved, or put pressure on our product pricing, which could negatively affect our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. Legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the FDA or foreign regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the marketing approvals of our product candidates, if any, may be. In addition, increased scrutiny by Congress of the FDA's approval process may significantly delay or prevent marketing approval, as well as subject us to more stringent product labeling and post-marketing testing and other requirements.

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Our and any collaborators' current and future arrangements with third-party payors, physicians and customers expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may restrict the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute any other products for which we may in the future obtain marketing approval. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations include the following: - the federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, persons from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, receiving or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward, or in return for, either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, order or recommendation of, any good or service, for which payment may be made under a federal healthcare program, such as Medicare and Medicaid; a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it to have committed a violation;- the False Claims Act, imposes, among other things, impose criminal and civil penalties, including through civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, against individuals or entities for knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, to the federal government, claims for payment that are false or fraudulent, knowingly making, using or causing to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim or from knowingly making a false statement to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government. In addition, the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal False Claims Act;- the federal Civil Monetary Penalties law, which prohibits, among other things, offering or transferring remuneration to a federal healthcare beneficiary that a person knows or should know is likely to influence the beneficiary's decision to order or receive items or services reimbursable by the government from a particular provider or supplier. To the extent our patient assistance programs are found to be inconsistent with applicable laws, we may be required to restructure or discontinue such programs, or be subject to other significant penalties;- HIPAA, imposes criminal and civil liability for executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or making false statements relating to healthcare matters; similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of these statutes or specific intent to violate them to have committed a violation;- the federal Physician Payment Sunshine Act requires applicable manufacturers of covered drugs to report payments and other transfers of value to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), certain non-physician practitioners (physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified registered nurse anesthetists, anesthesiology assistants, and certified nurse midwives), and teaching hospitals, and ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members; manufacturers are required to submit reports to the government by the 90th day of each calendar year; and - analogous state and foreign laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, may apply to our business practices, including but not limited to, research, distribution, sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers; state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry's voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government (or foreign governments) and may require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers, pricing information or marketing expenditures. The risk of us or any collaborators being found in violation of these laws is increased by the fact that many of them 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 or any collaborators 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 we may violate one or more of the requirements. Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental laws and regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.

Our product candidates and the activities associated with their development and potential future commercialization, including their design, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale and distribution, are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory agencies in the United States and similar regulatory authorities outside the United States. Failure to obtain marketing approval for a product candidate in any jurisdiction will prevent us and any collaborators from commercializing the product candidate in that jurisdiction and may affect our plans for potential future commercialization in other jurisdictions as well. We have not received approval to market any of our product candidates from regulatory authorities in any jurisdiction. We have only limited experience in filing and supporting the applications necessary to gain marketing approvals and expect to rely on third parties to assist us in this process. Securing marketing approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the product candidate's safety and efficacy, or with respect to biologics such as our live biotherapeutic candidates, safety, purity and potency. Securing marketing approval also requires the submission of information about the product manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the regulatory authorities. Our product candidates may not be effective, may be only moderately effective or may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that may preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use. The process of obtaining marketing approvals, both in the United States and abroad, is expensive, risky and may take many years. The scope and amount of clinical data required to obtain marketing approvals can vary substantially from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and it may be difficult to predict whether a particular regulatory body will require additional or different studies than those conducted by a sponsor, especially for novel product candidates such as our live biotherapeutic candidates. The FDA or foreign regulatory authorities may delay, limit, or deny approval to market our product candidates for many reasons, including: our inability to demonstrate that the clinical benefits of our product candidates outweigh any safety or other perceived risks; the regulatory authority's disagreement with the interpretation of data from nonclinical or clinical studies; the regulatory authority's requirement that we conduct additional preclinical studies and clinical trials; changes in marketing approval policies during the development period; changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or changes in regulatory review process for each submitted product application; or the regulatory authority's failure to approve the manufacturing processes or third-party manufacturers with which we contract. For instance, the EU pharmaceutical legislation is currently undergoing a complete review process, in the context of the Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe initiative, launched by the European Commission in November 2020. The European Commission's proposal for revision of several legislative instruments related to medicinal products (potentially reducing the duration of regulatory data protection, revising the eligibility for expedited pathways, etc.) was published on April 26, 2023. The proposed revisions remain to be agreed and adopted by the European Parliament and European Council (not expected before early 2026) and may have a significant impact on the biopharmaceutical industry in the long term. Additionally, regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept or file a marketing application if deficient. In addition, varying interpretations of the data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing could delay, limit or prevent marketing approval of a product candidate. Any marketing approval we ultimately obtain may be limited or subject to restrictions or post-approval commitments that render the approved product not commercially viable. Of the large number of drugs in development, only a small percentage successfully complete the FDA or other regulatory approval processes and are commercialized. Furthermore, our product candidates may not receive marketing approval even if they achieve their specified endpoints in clinical trials. Clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and many companies that have believed that their products performed satisfactorily in clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain regulatory authority approval for their products. The FDA or foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with our trial design and our interpretation of data from nonclinical and clinical studies, or they may require additional confirmatory or safety evidence beyond our existing clinical studies. Upon the FDA's review of data from any pivotal trial, it may request that the sponsor conduct additional analyses of the data or gather more data and, if it believes the data are not satisfactory, could advise the sponsor to delay submitting a marketing application. Even if we eventually complete clinical testing and receive approval of a biologics license application, or BLA, or foreign marketing authorization for one of our product candidates, the FDA or the applicable foreign regulatory authority may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly additional clinical trials, which may be required after approval. The FDA or the applicable foreign regulatory authority may also approve our product candidates for a more limited indication and/or a narrower patient population than we originally request, and the FDA, or applicable foreign regulatory authority, may not approve the labeling that we believe is necessary or desirable for the successful potential future commercialization of our product candidates. Any delay in obtaining, or inability to obtain, applicable regulatory approval would delay or prevent potential commercialization of our product candidates and would materially adversely impact our business and prospects. The development of therapeutic products targeting the underlying biology of the human microbiome is an emerging field, and it is possible that the FDA and other regulatory authorities could issue regulations or new policies in the future that could adversely affect our live biotherapeutic candidates. If we experience delays in obtaining approval or if we fail to obtain approval of our product candidates, the commercial prospects for our product candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate revenues will be materially impaired.

We have and may in the future seek Fast Track designation for some of our product candidates. If a drug or biologic is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and nonclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for this condition, the drug or biologic sponsor may apply for Fast Track designation. We received Fast Track designation for SER-155 to reduce the risk of infection and GvHD in patients undergoing allo-HSCT, and for SER-287 for the induction and maintenance of clinical remission in adults with mild-to-moderate UC. Fast Track designation applies to the combination of the product candidate and the specific indication for which it is being studied. Once granted, Fast Track designation provides increased opportunities for sponsor meetings with the FDA during preclinical and clinical development, and a BLA submitted for a Fast Track product candidate may also be eligible for rolling review, where the FDA may consider for review sections of the BLA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the BLA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the BLA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the application. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant this designation, and even if we believe another particular product candidate is eligible for this designation, we cannot be certain that the FDA would decide to grant it. Even with Fast Track designation, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. Fast Track designation does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. The FDA may withdraw Fast Track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program.

We may seek EMA PRIME (Priority Medicines) designation or other designations, schemes or tools for one or more of our product candidates. In the EU, innovative products that target an unmet medical need and are expected to be of major public health interest may be eligible for a number of expedited development and review programs, such as the PRIME scheme, which provides incentives similar to the Breakthrough Therapy designation in the United States. PRIME is a voluntary scheme aimed at enhancing the European Medicines Agency's, or EMA, support for the development of medicines that target unmet medical needs. It is based on increased interaction and early dialogue with companies developing promising medicines, to optimize their product development plans and speed up their evaluation to help them reach patients earlier. The benefits of a PRIME designation include the appointment of a rapporteur before submission of a marketing authorization application, early dialogue and scientific advice at key development milestones, and the potential to qualify products for accelerated review earlier in the application process. Even if we believe one of our product candidates is eligible for PRIME, the EMA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. The EMA PRIME scheme or other schemes, designations, or tools, even if obtained or used for any of our product candidates may not lead to a faster development, regulatory review or approval process compared to therapies considered for approval under conventional procedures and do not assure ultimate approval. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates is eligible to the PRIME scheme, the EMA may later decide that such product candidates no longer meet the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for review or approval will not be shortened. Product developers that benefit from PRIME designation may be eligible for accelerated assessment (in 150 days instead of 210 days), which may be granted for medicinal products of major interest from a public health perspective or that target an unmet medical need, but this is not guaranteed. The competent regulatory authorities in the EU have broad discretion whether to grant such an accelerated assessment, and, even if such assessment is granted, we may not experience a faster development process, review or authorization compared to conventional procedures. Moreover, the removal or threat of removal of such an accelerated assessment may create uncertainty or delay in the clinical development of our product candidates and threaten the commercialization prospects of our product candidates, if approved. Such an occurrence could materially impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Even if any of our product candidates receive marketing approval, our product candidates may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community. If our product candidates (if and when they are approved) do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not become profitable. The degree of market acceptance of any of our product candidates, if approved, will depend on a number of factors, including: - their efficacy, safety and other potential advantages compared to alternative treatments;- the clinical indications for which such products are approved;- our ability to offer them for sale at competitive prices;- their convenience and ease of administration compared to alternative treatments;- the willingness of the target patient population to try new therapies and of physicians to prescribe these therapies;- the strength of marketing and distribution support;- the availability of third-party coverage and adequate reimbursement for our product candidates;- the prevalence and severity of their side effects and their overall safety profiles;- any restrictions on the use of our products, if and when approved, together with other medications;- interactions of our products, if and when approved, with other medicines patients are taking; and - the ability of patients to take our products, if and when approved.