Prime Medicine, Inc. (PRME) Risk Factors

As is the case with other biotech and pharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involve both technological and legal complexity, and is therefore costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued in-licensed patents and future issued patents. The U.S. Congress is responsible for passing laws establishing patentability standards. Interpretation of patent standards can change significantly over time. Recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the validity and enforceability of patents, once obtained. Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that could weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce patents that we or our licensors have obtained or might obtain in the future. For example, in the case Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court held that certain claims to DNA molecules are not patentable. The application of Myriad to biotechnology inventions has continued to develop and may continue to change over time. In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court recently decided the case Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, which pertained to patent claims that defined a class of antibodies solely by their binding to a particular antigen. The U.S. Supreme Court determined that Amgen's claims broadly covered an entire class of antibodies while the patent specification described only a few antibodies and a trial and error approach to make and use all of the claimed antibodies. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the patent claims were invalid because Amgen's patent specification did not enable the claims over their broad scope. Certain claims in our patent portfolio relate to broad classes of gene editors. To the extent that a court finds that our patent specifications do not enable such broad classes of gene editors, a court could find such claims invalid. Similarly, foreign courts have made, and will likely continue to make, changes in how the patent laws in their respective jurisdictions are interpreted. We cannot predict future changes in the interpretation of patent laws or changes to patent laws that might be enacted into law by foreign legislative bodies. Any similar adverse changes in the patent laws of other jurisdictions could also have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. For example, a new court system relating solely to patent cases recently became operational in the EU. The Unified Patent Court, or the UPC, began accepting patent cases on June 1, 2023. The UPC is a common patent court with jurisdiction over patent infringement and revocation proceedings effective for multiple member states of the EU. The broad geographic reach of the UPC could enable third parties to seek revocation of any of our European patents that are subject to the jurisdiction of the UPC in a single proceeding at the UPC. Under the UPC, a successful revocation proceeding for a European Patent under the UPC could result in the partial or complete loss of patent protection in numerous EU countries. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business, including our ability to commercialize our technology and product candidates. Moreover, the controlling laws and regulations of the UPC will develop over time and we cannot predict what the outcomes of cases tried before the UPC will be. The case law of the UPC may adversely affect our ability to enforce or defend the validity of our European patents. Patent owners have the option to opt-out their European Patents from the jurisdiction of the UPC, defaulting to pre-UPC enforcement mechanisms. We have decided to opt out all of our European patents and patent applications from the UPC at this time. However, if certain formalities and requirements are not met, our European patents and patent applications could be subject to the jurisdiction of the UPC. Further, our future European patents and patent applications may not be subject to the opt-out provisions.

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other government fees on patents and applications are due to be paid to the USPTO and foreign patent agencies outside of the United States over the lifetime of our in-licensed patents, owned or licensed patent applications and patents that may issue from such applications. In certain circumstances, we rely on our licensors to pay these fees due to U.S. and non-U.S. patent agencies. The USPTO and foreign patent agencies require compliance with several procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. We are also dependent on our licensors to take the necessary action to comply with these requirements with respect to our licensed intellectual property. While an inadvertent lapse or non-compliance with such requirements can sometimes be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which non-compliance can result a partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Were a noncompliance event to occur, third parties might be able to enter the market with similar or identical products or technology, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Competitors and other third parties may infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate our future patents or the issued or future patents of our licensors, or we may be required to defend against claims of infringement, misappropriation or other violation. In addition, our future patents, or the issued or future patents of our licensors also may become involved in inventorship, priority, validity or enforceability disputes. Countering or defending against such claims can be expensive and time consuming. In an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent owned or in-licensed by us is invalid or unenforceable, or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our future owned patents and in-licensed patents and future patents do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation proceeding could put one or more of our future owned patents or in-licensed patents or future patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace, and there are numerous grounds upon which a third party can assert invalidity or unenforceability of a patent. 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 USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. Third parties may also raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. These types of mechanisms include re-examination, post-grant review, inter partes review, interference proceedings, derivation proceedings and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (e.g., opposition proceedings). These types of proceedings could result in revocation or amendment to our in-licensed patents or future patents such that they no longer cover our product candidates. The outcome for any particular patent following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we, our licensor, our patent counsel and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, or if we are otherwise unable to adequately protect our rights, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our technology and/or product candidates. Defense of these types of claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. Conversely, we may choose to challenge the patentability of claims in a third party's U.S. patent by requesting that the USPTO review the patent claims in re-examination, post-grant review, inter partes review, interference proceedings, derivation proceedings and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (e.g., opposition proceedings). We may choose to challenge third-party patents in patent opposition proceedings in the EPO or another foreign patent office. Even if successful, the costs of these opposition proceedings could be substantial and may consume our time or other resources. If we fail to obtain a favorable result at the USPTO, EPO or other patent office then we may be exposed to litigation by a third party alleging that their patent may be infringed by our product candidates, Prime Editing technology or other proprietary technologies. Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses and could distract our personnel from their normal responsibilities. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions, or other interim proceedings or developments, and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing, or distribution activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately. Certain third parties, including our competitors, may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace. Even if we established infringement of any of our future patents or issued or future in-licensed patents by a competitive product, a court may decide not to grant an injunction against further infringing activity, thus allowing the infringing product to continue to be marketed by the competitor. It is difficult to obtain an injunction in U.S. patent litigation and a court could decide that the competitor should instead pay us a "reasonable royalty" as determined by the court, and/or other monetary damages. A reasonable royalty or other monetary damages may or may not be an adequate remedy. Loss of exclusivity and/or competition from a competitive product would have a material adverse impact on our business.

The field of gene editing is still relatively new, and only one therapeutic gene editing product has reached the market. Due to the intense research and development that is taking place by several companies, including us and our competitors, in this field, the intellectual property landscape is evolving and in flux, and it may remain uncertain for the coming years. There may be significant intellectual property related litigation and administrative proceedings relating to our owned and in-licensed, and other third-party, intellectual property and proprietary rights in the future. Our commercial success depends upon our ability and the ability of our collaborators and present and future licensees to develop, manufacture, market and sell any product candidates that we may develop and use our proprietary technologies without infringing, misappropriating, or otherwise violating the intellectual property and proprietary rights of third parties. The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights as well as administrative proceedings for challenging patents, including interference, derivation, inter partes review, post grant review and reexamination proceedings before the USPTO or oppositions and other comparable proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. We may be subject to and may in the future become party to, or threatened with, adversarial proceedings or litigation regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our Prime Editing and PASSIGE technologies and product candidates we may develop, including interference proceedings, post-grant review, inter partes review, derivation proceedings and reexamination proceedings before the USPTO and similar proceedings in foreign jurisdictions such as oppositions before the European Patent Office, or EPO. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications that are owned by third parties exist in the fields in which we are developing our product candidates and they may assert infringement claims against us based on existing patents or patents that may be granted in the future, regardless of their merit. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our Prime Editing technology and product candidates may give rise to claims of infringement of the patent rights of others. Moreover, it is not always clear to industry participants, including us, which patents cover various types of therapies, products or their methods of use or manufacture. There may be third-party patents of which we are currently unaware with claims to technologies, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our product candidates. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications that may later result in issued patents that our product candidates may infringe. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents. Numerous third-party U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications exist in the fields in which we are developing product candidates. Our product candidates make use of CRISPR-based technology, which is a field that is highly active for patent filings. As of March 2022, it was reported that over 11,000 patent families worldwide related to CRISPR gene editing inventions and their uses. The extensive patent filings related to CRISPR make it difficult for us to assess the full extent of relevant patents and pending applications that may cover our Prime Editing technology and product candidates and their use or manufacture. There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our Prime Editing platform technology and product candidates. We are aware of multiple patents and patent applications directed to CRISPR technologies, Cas proteins, including Cas9, and their uses in gene editing. For example, we are aware of a patent portfolio that is co-owned by the University of California, University of Vienna and Emmanuelle Charpentier, which we refer to together as CVC, which contains multiple patents and pending applications directed to gene editing. We are also aware of patents and patent applications directed to gene editing, including ones that may be relevant to our Prime Editing and PASSIGE technologies, owned or co-owned by Broad Institute, MIT, Rockefeller University, Harvard, Toolgen Inc. and Sigma-Aldrich. Additional patents and patent applications that we are aware of and directed to gene-editing, including ones that may be relevant to our Prime Editing and PASSIGE technologies, are owned or co-owned by The General Hospital Corporation, BASF, SNIPR Technologies Ltd., Novartis, Columbia University, Agilent Technologies, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Life Technologies Corporation, University of California, Intellia, Editas Medicine, Tome Biosciences, Flagship Pioneering Innovations, Caribou Biosciences, University of Washington, University of California, Stanford University, Cellectis, and Inscripta. Our ability to commercialize our product candidates may be adversely affected if we require but cannot obtain a license to these patents. We may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be nonexclusive, thereby giving our competitors and other third parties access to the same technologies licensed to us, and it could require us to make substantial licensing and royalty payments. If we are unable to obtain a necessary license to a third-party patent on commercially reasonable terms, we may be unable to commercialize our Prime Editing technology or product candidates or such commercialization efforts may be significantly delayed, which could in turn significantly harm our business. Several patents and pending applications with claims directed to foundational aspects of CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing are currently involved in interference proceedings at the USPTO. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board, or PTAB, of the USPTO declared a second interference between 14 pending applications co-owned by the CVC and 13 patents and one pending application co-owned by Broad Institute, MIT, Rockefeller University and Harvard, which we refer to as the Boston Licensing Parties, in 2019 after the first interference between the two parties was terminated in 2018. In February 2022, the PTAB issued a decision in the second interference, granting priority to the patents and pending application co-owned by the Boston Licensing Parties over the pending applications co-owned by the CVC. In September 2022, the CVC appealed the PTAB's decision, at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the appeal is ongoing. While the second interference was in progress, Toolgen joined the patent dispute and two more interferences were declared in December 2020, between a pending application owned by Toolgen and several pending applications co-owned by the CVC or patents and pending applications co-owned by the Boston Licensing Parties. In June 2021, two additional interferences were declared between patents and applications co-owned by the Boston Licensing Parties or pending applications co-owned by the CVC and pending applications owned by Sigma-Aldrich. The PTAB subsequently suspended the interferences involving Toolgen and Sigma-Aldrich until the Federal Circuit issues a decision in the appeal between the CVC and the Boston Licensing Parties over the PTAB's decision in the second interference. It is presently unclear who will prevail in these proceedings and own or partially own the patents subject to such interferences. If it is necessary for us to obtain a license to one or more of the patents currently involved in such interference proceedings, such patents may not be available to license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. For example, we are aware that the Boston Licensing Parties and CVC have previously licensed certain of such patents to third parties. Our ability to commercialize our product candidates in the United States and abroad may be adversely affected if we cannot obtain a license on commercially reasonable terms to relevant third-party patents that cover our product candidates or Prime Editing technology. Because of the large number of patents issued and patent applications filed in our field, third parties may allege they have patent rights encompassing our product candidates, technologies or methods. Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization and may file patent infringement claims or lawsuits against us, and if we are found to infringe such third-party patents, we may be required to pay damages, cease commercialization of the infringing technology, or obtain a license from such third parties, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. In addition, we have in the past, and may in the future, receive an offer for license from third parties regarding their proprietary intellectual property for which they may believe encompass our product candidates and technologies. We will evaluate such offers for relevance to our business. Even if we believe third-party claims that we or our technology or product candidates are infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating such third party's intellectual property are without merit, there is no assurance that a court would find in our favor on questions of infringement, validity, enforceability, or priority. A court of competent jurisdiction could hold that these third-party patents are valid, enforceable and infringed, which could materially and adversely affect our ability to commercialize our product candidates and any other product candidates or technologies covered by the asserted third-party patents. In order to successfully challenge the validity of any such U.S. patent in federal court, we would need to overcome a presumption of validity. As this burden is a high one requiring us to present clear and convincing evidence as to the invalidity of any such U.S. patent claim, there is no assurance that a court of competent jurisdiction would invalidate the claims of any such U.S. patent. Further, even if we were successful in defending against any such claims, such claims could require us to divert substantial financial and management resources that we would otherwise be able to devote to our business. If we are found to infringe a third party's intellectual property rights, and we are unsuccessful in demonstrating that such patents are invalid or unenforceable, we could be forced, including by court order, to cease developing, manufacturing and commercializing the infringing technology or product candidates. In addition, we could be found liable for significant monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys' fees, if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent or other intellectual property right. We also could be required to obtain a license from such third party to continue developing, manufacturing and marketing product candidates we may develop and our technology. However, we may not be able to obtain any required 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 and other third parties access to the same technologies licensed to us, and it could require us to make substantial licensing and royalty payments. If we are unable to obtain a necessary license to a third-party patent on commercially reasonable terms, we may be unable to commercialize our Prime Editing technology or product candidates or such commercialization efforts may be significantly delayed, which could in turn significantly harm our business. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, our agreements with certain suppliers and other third parties with whom we do business require us to defend or indemnify such parties to the extent they become involved in patent infringement claims. We could also voluntarily agree to defend or indemnify third parties in instances where we are not obligated to do so if we determine it would be important to our business relationships. If we are required or agree to defend or indemnify third parties in connection with any infringement claims, we could incur significant costs and expenses that could adversely affect our business, operating results or financial condition. Defense of third-party claims of infringement of misappropriation, or violation of intellectual property rights involves substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of management and employee time and resources from our business. Some third parties 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 or could otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions, or other interim proceedings or developments, and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Any of the foregoing events could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We currently have rights to intellectual property, through licenses from third parties, to identify and develop product candidates, and we expect to seek to expand our product candidate pipeline in part by in-licensing additional rights to key technologies. The future growth of our business will depend in part on our ability to in-license or otherwise acquire the rights to additional product candidates and technologies. Although we have succeeded in licensing technologies from Beam Therapeutics and Broad Institute in the past, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to in-license or acquire additional rights to any product candidates or technologies from Beam Therapeutics, Broad Institute, or other third parties on acceptable terms or at all. For example, Broad Institute is developing improvements to the Prime Editing technology for which we may find it necessary or useful to obtain a license. In addition, our agreements with Beam Therapeutics and Broad Institute provide that our fields of use exclude particular fields. If we determine that rights to such fields are necessary to commercialize our technology or product candidates or maintain our competitive advantage, we may need to obtain a license from Beam Therapeutics or Broad Institute in order to continue developing, manufacturing or marketing our technology or product candidates. In addition, we may seek to obtain additional licenses from our licensors and, in connection with obtaining such licenses, we may agree to amend our existing licenses in a manner that may be more favorable to the licensors, including by agreeing to terms that could enable third parties (potentially including our competitors) to receive licenses to a portion of the intellectual property that is subject to our existing licenses. Additionally, upon our finalization of our product candidates, we may determine that there are third parties who possess technologies related to gene editing or other technologies which we may need to in-license, including intellectual property covering the use of Cas proteins and reverse transcriptases. We may not be able to obtain such a license on an exclusive basis, on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, which could prevent us from commercializing our product candidates or allow our competitors or other third parties the chance to access technology that is important to our business. Furthermore, there has been extensive patenting activity in the field of gene editing. Pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies and academic institutions are competing with us or are expected to compete with us in the in the field of gene editing technology and filing patent applications potentially relevant to our business and we are aware of certain third-party patent applications that, if issued, may allow the third party to circumvent our patent rights. For example, we are aware of several third-party patents and patent applications that may be construed to cover or be relevant to our Prime Editing and PASSIGE technologies and product candidates. In order to market our product candidates, we may find it necessary or prudent to obtain licenses from such third-party intellectual property holders. However, we may be unable to secure such licenses or otherwise acquire or in-license any compositions, methods of use, processes, or other intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify as necessary for product candidates we may develop and our Prime Editing technology. We may also require licenses from third parties for certain additional technologies, including technologies relating to Prime Editing, such as guide RNA modification, target sequences, Cas proteins such as Cas9, reverse transcriptases such as Moloney murine leukemia virus reverse transcriptase, as well as delivery technologies for product candidates we may develop. For our PASSIGE technology, we may require additional licenses from third parties for recombinase technologies. Additionally, we may collaborate with academic institutions to accelerate our research or development under written agreements with these institutions. In certain cases, these institutions may provide us with an option to negotiate a license to any of the institution's rights in technology resulting from the collaboration. Even if we hold such an option, we may be unable to negotiate a license from the institution within the specified timeframe or under terms that are acceptable to us. If we are unable to do so, such institution may offer the intellectual property rights to others, potentially blocking our ability to pursue our program. The licensing or acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a highly competitive area, and a number of more established companies are also pursuing strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider attractive or necessary. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, capital resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may be unable to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment or at all. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third party intellectual property rights or maintain the existing intellectual property rights we have, we may have to abandon development of the relevant program or product candidate, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We currently have in-licensed one ex-U.S. granted patent that covers Prime Editing components and methods of use. Although we own and have in-licensed numerous ex-U.S. patent applications, we have limited intellectual property rights outside the United States. Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on our Prime Editing technologies and product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can be less extensive than those in the United States. The laws of foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws of the United States, even in jurisdictions where we or our licensors do pursue patent protection. In addition, our intellectual property license agreements may not always include worldwide rights. Consequently, we or our licensors may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Third parties may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection but where enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our product candidates and patents that may issue from our or our licensors' pending patent applications or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing. Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology and pharmaceutical products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our future patents or marketing of competing products by third parties in violation of our intellectual property and proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our future patents or our licensors' patent or future patents and intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our future patents or our licensors' patent or future patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our or our licensors' patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us or our licensors. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we or our licensors initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Moreover, the initiation of proceedings by third parties to challenge the scope or validity of our or our licensors' patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial cost and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business. Accordingly, our or our licensors' efforts to enforce our or our licensors' intellectual property and proprietary rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license. Many countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of such patent. If we or our licensors are forced to grant one or more licenses to third parties with respect to any patent or future patents relevant to our business, our competitive position may be impaired, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be adversely affected.

The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations and may not adequately protect our business or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. For example: - our product candidates, if approved, will eventually become commercially available in generic or biosimilar product forms;- others may be able to make gene therapy products that are similar to our product candidates or utilize similar gene editing technology but that are not covered by the claims of the issued patents or patent applications that we own or license or the patents that we may own or license in the future;- we, our licensors, or our current or future collaborators, might not have been the first to make the inventions covered by the issued patents or pending patent applications that we license or may own in the future;- we, our licensors, or our current or future collaborators, might not have been the first to file patent applications covering certain of our or their inventions;- we, our licensors, or our current or future collaborators, may fail to meet our obligations to the U.S. government regarding any in-licensed patents or patent applications funded by U.S. government grants, leading to the loss or unenforceability of patent rights;- others may independently develop similar or alternative technologies or duplicate any of our technologies without infringing our owned or licensed intellectual property rights;- it is possible that our pending, owned or licensed patent applications or those that we may own in the future will not lead to issued patents;- it is possible that there are prior public disclosures that could invalidate our owned or in-licensed patent rights, or parts of our owned or in-licensed patent rights;- it is possible that there are unpublished patent applications or patent applications maintained in secrecy that may later issue with claims covering our product candidates or technology similar to ours;- it is possible that our owned or in-licensed patents or patent applications omit individual(s) that should be listed as inventor(s) or include individual(s) that should not be listed as inventor(s), which may cause the patent or patents issuing from these patent applications to be held invalid or unenforceable;- patents, if and when issued, that we obtain in the future may be held invalid, unenforceable, or narrowed in scope, including as a result of legal challenges by third parties, including our competitors;- the claims of our owned or in-licensed patents, if and when issued, may not cover our product candidates;- the laws of foreign countries may not protect our proprietary rights or the proprietary rights of license partners or current or future collaborators to the same extent as the laws of the United States;- the inventors of our owned or in-licensed patent or patent applications may become involved with competitors, develop products or processes that design around our patent or patent applications, or become hostile to us or the patent, patent applications or patents that may issue from such patent applications on which they are named as inventors;- third parties might conduct research and development activities in countries where we do not have patent rights and then use the information learned from such activities to develop competitive products for sale in our major commercial markets;- we have engaged in scientific collaborations in the past and will continue to do so in the future and our collaborators may develop adjacent or competing products that are outside the scope of our patent or patent applications;- we may not develop additional proprietary technologies that are patentable;- any product candidates we develop may be covered by third-parties' patents or other exclusive rights;- the patents of others may harm our business; or - we may choose not to file a patent in order to maintain certain trade secrets or know-how and a third party may subsequently file a patent covering such intellectual property. Should any of these events occur, they could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We do not currently own any registered trademarks. Our 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 partners or customers in our markets of interest. At times, competitors or other third parties 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 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 affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

As is common in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, we employ individuals who were previously employed at universities, research institutions, or other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although no claims against us are currently pending, and although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants, independent contractors or other third parties 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, consultants, independent contractors or other third parties have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of a former employer or other third parties. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments, and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. This type of litigation or proceeding could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce our resources available for development activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to adequately conduct such litigation or proceedings. Certain third parties, including our competitors, may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their substantially greater financial resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other intellectual property related proceedings could adversely affect our ability to compete in the marketplace.

In addition to seeking patent protection for our technology and product candidates, we also rely on know-how and trade secret protection, as well as confidentiality agreements, non-disclosure agreements and invention assignment agreements with our employees, consultants and third-parties, to protect our confidential and proprietary information, especially where we do not believe patent protection is appropriate or obtainable. It is our policy to require our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, CROs, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties to execute confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of employment or consulting relationships with us. These agreements generally provide that all confidential information concerning our business or financial affairs developed by or made known to the individual or entity during the course of the party's relationship with us is to be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties, except in certain specified circumstances. In the case of employees, the agreements generally provide that all inventions conceived by the individual, and that are related to our current or planned business or research and development or made during normal working hours, on our premises or using our equipment or proprietary information, are our exclusive property. In the case of consultants and other third parties, the agreements generally provide that all inventions conceived in connection with the services provided are our exclusive property. However, we cannot guarantee that we have entered into such agreements with each party that may have or have had access to our trade secrets or proprietary technology and processes or who were involved in the development of intellectual property. Additionally, the assignment of intellectual property rights may not be self-executing, or the assignment agreements may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims that they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property. 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. We may not be able to prevent the unauthorized disclosure or use of our technical know-how or other trade secrets by the parties to these agreements. Monitoring unauthorized uses and disclosures is difficult and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to protect our proprietary technology will be effective. 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 to contractual measures, we try to protect the confidential nature of our proprietary information through other appropriate precautions, such as physical and technological security measures. However, trade secrets and know-how can be difficult to protect and we do not have a formal trade secret policy at this time. These measures may not, for example, in the case of misappropriation of a trade secret by an employee or third party with authorized access, provide adequate protection for our proprietary information. Our security measures may not prevent an employee or consultant from misappropriating our trade secrets and providing them to a third party, and any recourse we might take against this type of misconduct may not provide an adequate remedy to protect our interests fully. In addition, trade secrets may be independently developed by others in a manner that could prevent us from receiving legal recourse. If any of our confidential or proprietary information, such as our trade secrets, were to be disclosed or misappropriated, or if any of that information was independently developed by a third party, our competitive position could be harmed. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are sometimes less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. If we choose to go to court to stop a third party from using any of our trade secrets, we may incur substantial costs. Even if we are successful, these types of lawsuits may consume our time and other resources. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We have in-licensed four issued U.S. patents, one granted ex-U.S. patent, and own and have in-licensed a number of patent applications that cover Prime Editing methods and its components and systems. We and our licensors have filed patent applications intended to specifically cover our Prime Editing technology and uses with respect to treatment of particular diseases and conditions. While we in-license four issued U.S. patents, we do not currently own any, or in-license any other, issued U.S. patents. We have four in-licensed issued U.S. patents and one granted ex-U.S. patent, all of which cover Prime Editing methods and its components and systems. Our owned and in-licensed patent applications contain claims directed to compositions of matter for our Prime Editing product candidates, as well as methods directed to the use of such product candidates for gene therapy treatment. Method-of-use patents do not prevent a competitor or other third party from developing or marketing an identical product for an indication that is outside the scope of the patented method. Moreover, with respect to method-of-use patents, even if competitors or other third parties do not actively promote their product for our targeted indications or uses for which we may obtain patents, providers may recommend that patients use these products off-label, or patients may do so themselves. The strength of patents in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical field involves complex legal and scientific questions and can be uncertain. The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity, or enforceability, and our or our licensors' current and future patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. The patent applications that we own or in-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our product candidates or uses thereof in the United States or in other foreign countries. For example, while our or our licensors' patent applications are pending, such patent applications may now or in the future be subject to a third-party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, or become involved in interference or derivation proceedings or equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. For example, prior art was submitted by one or more third parties with respect to certain of our Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, patent applications as well as in patent applications filed in the European Patent Office in-licensed from Broad Institute directed to Prime Editing. Third parties may challenge the inventorship, priority of invention, validity, enforceability or scope of our in-licensed patents and our or our licensors' patent applications that successfully issue, including through opposition, revocation, reexamination, post-grant and inter partes review proceedings and litigation. Moreover, we, or one of our licensors, may have to participate in interference proceedings declared by the USPTO to determine priority of invention or in post grant challenge proceedings, such as oppositions in a foreign patent office, that challenge priority of invention or other features of patentability. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation may result in loss of patent rights, loss of exclusivity, or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, allow third parties to commercialize our technology or product candidates and compete directly with us, without payment to us, limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and product candidates, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights. Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, our patent rights may not adequately protect our intellectual property or prevent others from designing around our platform technology or product candidates. If the breadth or strength of protection provided by our in-licensed patents or patents that may issue from the patent applications we own or in-license with respect to our Prime Editing technology and product candidates is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to develop, and threaten our ability to commercialize, our product candidates. Further, if we encounter delays in development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, the period of time during which we could market our product candidates under patent protection would be reduced. Given that patent applications in the United States and other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing, at any moment in time, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were in the past or will be in the future the first to file any patent application related to our Prime Editing technology or product candidates. In addition, some patent applications in the United States may be maintained in secrecy until the patents are issued. As a result, there may be prior art of which we or our licensors are not aware that may affect the validity or enforceability of a patent claim, and we or our licensors may be subject to priority disputes. For our in-licensed patent portfolios, we rely on our licensors to determine inventorship and to obtain and file inventor assignments of priority applications before their conversion as PCT applications. A failure to do so in a timely fashion may give rise to a challenge to entitlement of priority for foreign applications nationalized from such PCT applications. We or our licensors may in the future become a party to proceedings or priority disputes in Europe or other foreign jurisdictions. The loss of priority for, or the loss of, any European or other foreign patent rights could have a material adverse effect on the conduct of our business. We may be required to disclaim part or all of the term of certain patents that may issue from our owned or in-licensed patent applications. There may be prior art of which we are not aware that may affect the validity or enforceability of a patent claim. There also may be prior art of which we or our licensors are aware, but which we or our licensors do not believe affects the validity or enforceability of a claim, which may, nonetheless, ultimately be found to affect the validity or enforceability of a claim. No assurance can be given that, if challenged, our in-licensed patents and patent applications, if issued, would be declared by a court, patent office or other governmental authority to be valid or enforceable, or that even if the patent claims were found to be not invalid or unenforceable, a third party's technology or product would be found by a court to infringe our patent rights. Moreover, even if our in-licensed patents and patent applications, if issued, are declared to be valid and enforceable and a third party's technology or product found to infringe our patent rights, a court or other governmental authority may refuse to prevent a third party's technology or product from being marketed, and the court or governmental authority would determine the royalty rate to be paid by the third party to us. We analyze patents or patent applications of third parties that we believe are relevant to our activities, but third parties may achieve issued claims, including in patents we consider to be unrelated, that block our efforts or potentially result in our product candidates or our activities infringing such claims. It is possible that third parties may have filed, and may in the future file, patent applications covering our products or gene editing technology similar to ours. Those patent applications may have priority over our in-licensed patents and owned and in-licensed patent applications, which could require us to obtain rights to issued patents covering such technologies. The possibility also exists that others will develop products that have the same effect as our product candidates on an independent basis that do not infringe our in-licensed patents or patents that may issue from our own or in-licensed patent applications, or other intellectual property rights, or will design around the claims of our in-licensed patents or our patents that may issue from our owned or in-licensed patent applications that cover our product candidates. Likewise, our in-licensed issued patents and currently owned and in-licensed patent applications, if issued as patents, directed to our in-licensed and company-owned Prime Editing technologies and our product candidates are expected to expire between 2040 and 2045, without taking into account any possible patent term adjustments or extensions. Our in-licensed issued patents, or owned or in-licensed patent applications, if issued as patents, may expire before, or soon after, our first product candidate achieves marketing approval in the United States or foreign jurisdictions. Additionally, no assurance can be given that the USPTO or relevant foreign patent offices will grant any of the pending patent applications we own or in-license currently or in the future. Upon the expiration of such patents that may issue from our current owned or in-licensed patent applications, we may lose the right to exclude others from practicing these inventions. The expiration of these patent rights could also have a similar material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We do not currently own any issued patents and are heavily reliant upon certain patent rights and proprietary technology we have licensed from third parties that are important or necessary to the development of our Prime Editing technology and product candidates. For example, we are a party to two license agreements with Broad Institute. In September 2019, we entered into a license agreement with Broad Institute, or the Broad License Agreement, and in May 2020, February 2021, and December 2022, we entered into amendments to such license agreement. In December 2022, we entered into a new license agreement with Broad Institute, or the 2022 Broad License Agreement. Under the amended Broad License Agreement and the 2022 Broad License Agreement, Broad Institute grants us certain rights and licenses under certain patent rights it owns or controls relating to our Prime Editing technology and product candidates. Each license agreement imposes various diligence, milestone payment, royalty, insurance and other obligations on us. Our licenses are subject to Broad Institute's inclusive innovation model, pursuant to which Broad Institute retains the right, in certain circumstances, to grant to third parties (other than specified competitors of ours) licenses under the licensed patent rights that would otherwise fall within the scope of the exclusive license granted to us. All gene targets, which are any human genes to which a program is directed, are subject to Broad Institute's march-in license, which means Broad Institute has the right to terminate our license to gene targets under certain conditions and could make one or more gene targets unavailable to us. However, if we initiate a program for a gene target, in accordance with the terms of each license agreement, we may block a march-in request by making certain showing and by continuing to use commercially reasonable efforts to continue to progress such development. Internally, we determine when a program for a gene target has been initiated by considering factors such as whether a gene target has been identified as the subject of a program, how much time or resources have been dedicated to researching, developing, and/or designing and using reagents for a program, and the amount of preclinical testing in process for such program. If we fail to comply with these or other obligations in our current or future license agreements, our licensors may have the right to terminate our license, in which event we would not be able to develop or market our Prime Editing technology or any other technology or product candidates covered by the intellectual property licensed under this agreement. Our business would be seriously harmed if any current or future licenses terminate, if our licensors fail to abide by the terms of the license, if our licensors fail to enforce licensed patents against infringing third parties, if the licensed patents or other rights are found to be invalid or unenforceable, or if we are unable to enter into necessary licenses on acceptable terms. If our license agreements terminate, or we experience a reduction or elimination of licensed rights under these agreements, we may have to negotiate new or reinstated licenses with less favorable terms or we may not have sufficient intellectual property rights to operate our business. Moreover, if certain of our license agreements terminate, we may be required to continue to license or assign certain of our intellectual property to the applicable counterparty. Certain of the patent rights that we license from Broad Institute under the Broad License Agreement are co-owned by Broad Institute with Harvard and certain of the licensed patent rights under the Broad License Agreement are co-owned by Broad Institute, Harvard, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, or MIT. The patent rights that we license from Broad Institute under the 2022 Broad License Agreement are co-owned by Broad Institute with Harvard, the Trustees of Princeton University, or Princeton, and the Regents of the University of California, or University of California. In addition, some of the inventors of the licensed patent and patent applications are or were employees of HHMI, which retains certain rights to patents and patent applications invented by their employees. Our rights to our in-licensed patents and patent applications from Broad Institute are dependent, in part, on inter-institutional or other operating agreements between Broad Institute, Harvard, MIT, University of California, Princeton and HHMI. If Broad Institute, Harvard, MIT, University of California, Princeton or HHMI breaches or terminates such inter-institutional or operating agreements, our rights to such in-licensed patents and patent applications may be adversely affected. We have also licensed certain improvements to Prime Editing from Dr. Liu's laboratory at Broad Institute. For example, Dr. Liu's laboratory at Broad Institute developed engineered pegRNAs, or epegRNAs, which we have exclusively in-licensed. Dr. Liu has entered into an agreement with us pursuant to which he is obligated to assign to us any inventions with respect to the services he performs for us. However, such obligations are subject to limitations and do not extend to his work in other fields or to the intellectual property arising from his employment with Harvard, HHMI and Broad Institute. To obtain such intellectual property rights, we would need to enter into license agreements with such institutions, and such license agreements may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Additionally, in September 2019, we established a strategic relationship with Beam Therapeutics, a biotechnology company developing gene editing products using its proprietary base editing technology. Under our license and collaboration agreement with Beam Therapeutics, or the Beam Collaboration Agreement, each party grants to the other certain exclusive and non-exclusive licenses and rights to certain Prime Editing, CRISPR and delivery technologies for use in certain specified fields. Activities performed by Prime and Beam Therapeutics under the Beam Collaboration Agreement may lead to co-owned patents and patent applications. These and other licenses may not provide exclusive rights to use such intellectual property and technology in all relevant fields of use and in all territories in which we may wish to develop or commercialize our Prime Editing technology and product candidates in the future. Some licenses granted to us are expressly subject to certain preexisting rights held by the licensors or certain third parties. As a result, we may not be able to prevent third parties from developing and commercializing competitive products in certain territories or fields. For example, the rights granted to us under each license agreement are subject to certain retained rights of Broad Institute, MIT, Harvard, Princeton, University of California, HHMI and the U.S. federal government, and the rights granted to us under the Beam Collaboration Agreement are subject to certain third party agreements and certain rights retained by third parties. Additionally, each license agreement with Broad Institute provides that our field of use is limited to the field of prevention or treatment of human disease, and most licenses granted to us under each license agreement with Broad Institute are further limited to the prevention or treatment of human disease by editing (including modifying or converting) or targeting DNA ex vivo, in vivo, or through xeno-transplantation methods and includes other specified exclusions. If we determine that rights to additional fields, including the specifically excluded fields, are necessary to commercialize our product candidates or maintain our competitive advantage, we may need to obtain a license from Broad Institute and/or other third parties in order to continue developing, manufacturing or marketing our product candidates. We may not be able to obtain such a license on an exclusive basis, on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, which could prevent us from commercializing our product candidates or allow our competitors or other third parties the chance to access technology that is important to our business. We do not control the preparation, filing, prosecution and maintenance of the patents and patent applications covering the technology that we license from Broad Institute or Beam Therapeutics. For example, pursuant to our licenses with Broad Institute and Beam Therapeutics, our licensors retain control of preparation, filing, prosecution and maintenance of their wholly-owned patents and patent applications. We rely on such licensors to determine inventorship and perfect priority of their patent applications. We cannot be certain that these patents and patent applications will be prepared, filed, prosecuted, maintained and defended in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. If Broad Institute or Beam Therapeutics fails to prosecute or maintain such patents and patent applications or loses rights to such patents and patent applications, the rights we have licensed may be reduced or eliminated, our right to develop and commercialize any of our product candidates we may develop that are the subject of such licensed rights could be adversely affected and we may not be able to prevent third parties from making, using and selling competing products. In addition, we do not control all enforcement of the patents and patent applications we license from Broad Institute. It is possible that our licensors' enforcement of patents against infringers or defense of such patents against challenges of validity or claims of enforceability may be less vigorous than if we had conducted them ourselves, or may not be conducted in accordance with our best interests. Our licensors may have relied on third-party consultants or collaborators or on funds from third parties such that our licensors are not the sole and exclusive owners of the patent rights we have in-licensed. If other third parties have ownership rights to our in-licensed issued patents and patent applications, the license granted to us in jurisdictions where the consent of a co-owner is necessary to grant such a license may not be valid, and such co-owners for which we do not secure exclusive licenses may be able to license such patent rights to third parties, including our competitors, and such third parties may be able to market competing products and technology. Furthermore, inventions contained within some of our in-licensed issued patents and patent applications were made using U.S. government funding. We rely on our licensors to ensure compliance with applicable obligations arising from such funding, such as timely reporting, an obligation associated with our in-licensed patents and patent applications. The failure of our licensors to meet their obligations may lead to a loss of rights or the unenforceability of relevant patents that may issue from such applications. For example, the U.S. government could have certain rights in such in-licensed issued patent and patent applications, including a non-exclusive license authorizing the U.S. government to use the invention or to have others use the invention on its behalf. If the U.S. government decides to exercise these rights, it is not required to engage us as its contractor in connection with doing so. The U.S. government's rights may also permit it to disclose the funded inventions and technology to third parties and to exercise march-in rights to use or allow third parties to use the technology we have licensed that was developed using U.S. government funding. The U.S. government may also exercise its march-in rights if it determines that action is necessary because we or our licensors failed to achieve practical application of the U.S. government-funded technology, because action is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs, to meet requirements of federal regulations, or to give preference to U.S. industry. For example, if the U.S. government determines it is necessary, the U.S. government may exercise its march-in rights and license to third-party manufacturers any or all of our future products or current or future product candidates covered by in-licensed patents and patent applications made using U.S. government funding. In addition, our rights in such in-licensed U.S. government-funded inventions may be subject to certain requirements to manufacture product candidates embodying such inventions in the United States. Any of the foregoing could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects significantly. In the event that any of our third-party licensors determines that, in spite of our efforts, we have materially breached a license agreement or have failed to meet certain obligations thereunder, it may elect to terminate the license agreement or, in some cases, one or more license(s) under the applicable license agreement and such termination would result in us no longer having the ability to develop and commercialize product candidates and technology covered by that license agreement or license. In the event of such termination of a third-party in-license, or if the underlying patent rights under a third-party in-license fail to provide the intended exclusivity, third parties may be able to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, products identical to ours. Moreover, our licensors may own or control intellectual property that has not been licensed to us and, as a result, we may be subject to claims, regardless of their merit, that we are infringing or otherwise violating the licensor's rights. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations and prospects. Pursuant to our license agreements with Beam Therapeutics and Broad Institute, we are generally responsible for bringing any actions against any third party for infringing on certain of the patent rights we have licensed from such counterparty, subject to certain conditions. Certain provisions of each license agreement with Broad Institute also require us to meet development thresholds within specified timeframes to maintain the license, including establishing a set timeline for developing and commercializing products, while some provisions of the Beam Collaboration Agreement require us to use commercially reasonable efforts to conduct development activities for collaboration products. In spite of our efforts, Broad Institute, Beam Therapeutics, or any future licensor from whom we may seek to license intellectual property rights might conclude that we have materially breached our obligations under such license agreements and might therefore terminate the license agreements, thereby removing or limiting our ability to develop and commercialize products and technology covered by these license agreements. If these licenses agreements are terminated, or if the underlying patent rights fail to provide the intended exclusivity, competitors or other third parties may be able to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, products identical to ours and we may be required to cease our development and commercialization of our Prime Editing technology or product candidates. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects. Disputes may arise regarding intellectual property subject to a licensing agreement, including: - the scope of rights granted under the license agreement and other interpretation-related issues;- the extent to which our technology and processes infringe on intellectual property of the licensor that is not subject to the licensing agreement;- the sublicensing of patent rights to third parties under our collaborative development relationships;- our diligence obligations under the license agreement with respect to the use of the licensed technology in relation to our development and commercialization of our product candidates and what activities satisfy those diligence obligations;- the inventorship and ownership of inventions and know-how resulting from the joint creation or use of intellectual property by our licensor and us and our partners; and - the priority of invention of patented technology. In addition, the agreements under which we currently license intellectual property rights from Beam Therapeutics and Broad Institute are complex, and certain provisions in such agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise under our existing license agreements or future license agreements into which we may enter could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology or broaden what we believe to be the scope of the licensor's rights to our intellectual property and technology, or increase what we believe to be our financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. For example, we have exclusively licensed and sublicensed certain of our owned and licensed intellectual property rights to Beam Therapeutics under the Beam Collaboration Agreement in certain fields. Such agreement may be susceptible to multiple interpretations and the resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement could expand the field of exclusivity or other rights we have granted to Beam Therapeutics and therefore, narrow our field of exclusivity or rights with respect to such licensed intellectual property rights. Moreover, if disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on commercially acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates. As a result, any termination of or disputes over our intellectual property licenses could result in the loss of our ability to develop and commercialize our Prime Editing technology or other product candidates or we could lose other significant rights, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial conditions, results of operations and prospects. It is also possible that a third party could be granted limited licenses to some of the same technology, in certain circumstances.