UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023

OR

Commission File Number 001-40522

Monte Rosa Therapeutics, Inc.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its Charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (617) 949-2643

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the Registrant, based on the closing price of the shares of common stock on NASDAQ on June 30, 2023, was $234.3 million.

The number of shares of Registrant’s Common Stock outstanding as of March 11, 2024 was 50,154,073.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Table of Contents

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K, or Annual Report, contains forward-looking statements which are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the or the Securities Act, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act. All statements other than statements of historical facts contained in this Annual Report are forward-looking statements. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may”, “will”, “should”, “expects”, “intends”, “plans”, “anticipates”, “believes”, “estimates”, “predicts”, “potential”, “continue” or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology. These statements are not guarantees of future results or performance and involve substantial risks and uncertainties. Forward-looking statements in this Annual Report include, but are not limited to, statements about:

Any forward-looking statements in this Annual Report reflect our current views with respect to future events and with respect to our future financial performance, and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results, performance, or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance, or achievements expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. Factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from current expectations include, among other things, those described under Item 1A, “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report. Given these uncertainties, you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements.

All of our forward-looking statements are as of the date of this Annual Report only. In each case, actual results may differ materially from such forward-looking information. We can give no assurance that such expectations or forward-looking statements will prove to be correct. An occurrence of or any material adverse change in one or more of the risk factors or risks and uncertainties referred to in this Annual Report or included in our other public disclosures or our other periodic reports or other documents or filings filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, could materially and adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. Except as required by law, we do not undertake or plan to update or revise any such forward-looking statements to reflect actual results, changes in plans, assumptions, estimates or projections or other circumstances affecting such forward-looking statements occurring after the date of this Annual Report, even if such results, changes or circumstances make it clear that any forward-looking information will not be realized. Any public statements or disclosures by us following this Annual Report that modify or impact any of the forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report will be deemed to modify or supersede such statements in this Annual Report.

We may from time to time provide estimates, projections and other information concerning our industry, the general business environment, and the markets for certain diseases, including estimates regarding the potential size of those markets and the estimated incidence and prevalence of certain medical conditions. Information that is based on estimates, forecasts, projections, market research or similar methodologies is inherently subject to uncertainties, and actual events, circumstances or numbers, including actual disease prevalence rates and market size, may differ materially from the information reflected in this Annual Report. Unless otherwise expressly stated, we obtained this industry, business information, market data, prevalence information and other data from reports, research surveys, studies and similar data prepared by market research firms and other third parties, industry, medical and general publications, government data, and similar sources, in some cases applying our own assumptions and analysis that may, in the future, prove not to have been accurate.

TRADEMARKS

Solely for convenience, our trademarks and trade names in this report are sometimes referred to without the ® and ™ symbols, but such references should not be construed as any indicator that we will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, our rights thereto.

SUMMARY OF RISK FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH OUR BUSINESS

Our business is subject to numerous material and other risks and uncertainties that you should be aware of in evaluating our business. These risks are described more fully in Part II, “Item 1A—Risk Factors,” and include, but are not limited to, the following:

PART I

Item 1. Business

Overview

We are a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing a portfolio of novel and proprietary molecular glue degraders, or “MGDs”. MGDs are small molecule drugs that employ the body’s natural protein destruction mechanisms to selectively degrade therapeutically-relevant proteins. MGDs function by inducing the engagement of an E3 ligase, such as cereblon, with defined structural features on surfaces of target proteins. These target proteins are also referred to as neosubstrates. The E3 ligase then tags the target protein for degradation by adding a molecular mark known as ubiquitin. We have developed a proprietary and industry leading platform, called QuEEN™ (an abbreviation for “Quantitative and Engineered Elimination of Neosubstrates”) to enable our unique target-centric MGD discovery and development approach and our rational design of MGD product candidates. We believe our MGDs provide significant advantages over existing therapeutic modalities, including other protein degradation approaches. To date, our QuEENTM platform has identified numerous proteins for potential targeting by our MGDs, including those in our pipeline. We combine our artificial intelligence or “AI” / machine learning or “ML” engines with multiple proprietary experimental tools to identify therapeutically-relevant target proteins amenable to degradation by our MGDs. We are continuously increasing our understanding of how MGDs function and we are using this understanding to develop design principles for the engineering of new MGDs. This growing expertise manifests in our expanding MGD library as well as our discovery and development pipeline. Using our insights, knowhow, and technology platform we have generated a library of MGDs that forms the basis for our MGD programs. At present, our library comprises a diverse set of rationally designed small molecules representing more than 400 unique low molecular weight scaffolds and about 50,000 different MGD molecules, We also use our insights and learnings to continuously update and improve QuEENTM and our MGD library consistently increasing the power of the platform.

We prioritize our product development on therapeutic target proteins backed by strong biological and genetic rationales. We are focused on developing solutions to clinically important indications, including oncology, inflammation, immunology, and others.

Our most advanced product candidate, MRT-2359, is an orally bioavailable MGD targeting the translation termination factor protein GSPT1. MRT-2359 is currently in clinical development for potential use in MYC-driven tumors, including metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, or NSCLC, small cell lung cancer, or SCLC, and high-grade neuroendocrine tumors. Our pre-clinical studies showed that through a functional association between GSPT1 and the MYC family of transcription factors, GSPT1 serves as a key regulator of MYC-induced protein translation, and that the degradation of GSPT1 using our MGDs creates a potential vulnerability in multiple MYC-driven tumors. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration or the “FDA” cleared the company’s investigational new drug application or “IND” for MRT-2359 in September 2022, and we initiated a phase 1/2 clinical trial for the treatment of MYC-driven solid and high-grade neuroendocrine tumors in October 2022. In October 2023, we presented interim data from the Phase 1 dose escalation part of our Phase 1/2 clinical trial of MRT-2359 demonstrating favorable pharmacokinetic (PK), pharmacodynamic (PD), and tolerability profiles and early, but we believe promising, signs of clinical activity, including tumor size reductions in patients with biomarker-positive cancers. In January 2023, MRT-2359 received Fast Track designation from the FDA for the treatment of patients with previously treated, metastatic NSCLC with L-MYC or N-MYC expression. In June 2023, MRT-2359 received Orphan Drug Designation from FDA for treatment of small cell lung cancer (SCLC). In December 2023, MRT-2359 received Fast Track Designation from the FDA for the treatment of patients with previously treated, metastatic SCLC with L-MYC or N-MYC expression.

Beyond GSPT1, we are advancing our pipeline of assets towards the clinic. Specifically, our VAV1 product candidate, MRT-6160, has concluded IND-enabling safety assessment and is advancing towards an anticipated U.S. FDA IND filing in Q2 of 2024, and clinical study initiation is expected in mid 2024. VAV1 plays a critical role in T- and B-cell receptor signaling and activity. As most autoimmune diseases are driven by an underlying dysregulation or hyperactivation of T- and/or B-cell receptor signaling, a VAV1-directed MGD such as MRT-6160 offers potential to ameliorate aberrant responses from both cell types to treat multiple T- or T-/B-cell mediated autoimmune diseases including inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, and others.

In addition, we recently disclosed our first product candidate for our NEK7 program, MRT-8102, which is now in IND-enabling studies, with an IND filing with the FDA planned for Q1 of 2025.

Further our CDK2 program is in lead optimization and continues to advance towards product candidate selection. Our pipeline also includes multiple additional undisclosed discovery phase programs.

Our proprietary QuEENTM platform uniquely enables us to rationally design and develop our diverse library of MGDs and to deploy them against target proteins identified through our AI/ML approach. Uniquely, many of these target proteins are considered inadequately drugged or completely undruggable by other therapeutic modalities. Our resulting MGDs are designed to reprogram the E3 ligase to bind to and induce the degradation of a therapeutically-relevant target protein. Central to our QuEENTM platform is a detailed understanding of the molecular interactions promoted by our MGDs between E3 ligases and structural features on the surface of therapeutically-relevant proteins, which we refer to as degrons.

Key components of our QuEENTM platform are:

By capturing our insights and experience with the identification of target proteins amenable to our approach as well as the discovery and development of MGDs through QuEENTM, we are constantly increasing the power of the platform.

Our most advanced product candidate, MRT-2359, is a potent, highly selective orally bioavailable MGD of the translation termination factor protein GSPT1. MRT-2359 was identified using QuEENTM and is currently in development as a potential treatment for cancers dependent on or characterized by the expression of high levels of MYC family genes (c-MYC, L-MYC and N-MYC). The MYC transcription factors are some of the most frequently mutated, translocated and highly expressed oncogenes in human cancers and we propose targeting GSPT1 as a strategy for therapeutically addressing these cancers. MYC-driven cancer cells are highly addicted to protein translation, and we have shown in extensive pre-clinical studies that due to the key role of GSPT1 in protein synthesis, selective GSPT1 degradation by MRT-2359 in cells expressing high levels of L- or N-MYC leads to cell death. Further, we have demonstrated in these MYC-driven preclinical models that MRT-2359 potently and selectively induces GSPT1 degradation, leading to tumor regression after oral administration as a single agent. We have also shown that MRT-2359 combines with a variety of other agents, including androgen-receptor and estrogen-receptor antagonists, as well as mTOR inhibitors, and prevents development of resistance in a preclinical setting. Based on these preclinical results, we initiated clinical trials with MRT-2359 in October 2022. The Phase 1/2, open-label, multicenter study was designed to primarily assess the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetic or “PK”, pharmacodynamic or “PD” and preliminary clinical activity of MRT-2359 in patients with previously treated selected solid tumors, including NSCLC, SCLC, high-grade neuroendocrine cancer of any primary site, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma or “DLBCL” and solid tumors with L-MYC or N-MYC amplification. In October 2023, we disclosed interim clinical data including PK, PD, safety and available initial efficacy from the Phase 1 arm of the ongoing Phase 1/2 clinical trial evaluating MRT-2359. Interim data demonstrated favorable pharmacokinetic (PK), pharmacodynamic (PD), and tolerability profiles and early, but we believe promising, signs of clinical activity, including tumor size reductions in patients with biomarker-positive cancers. We expect to announce the recommended Phase 2 dose for the MRT-2359 Phase 1/2 study in Q2 2024 and report updated Phase 1 clinical results thereafter. We also expect to initiate the Phase 2 portion of the study before year-end 2024.

Our development candidate for VAV1, MRT-6160 is a potent, highly selective, and orally bioavailable investigational molecular glue degrader of VAV1, which in our in vitro studies has shown deep degradation of its

target with no detectable effects on other proteins. VAV1, a Rho-family guanine nucleotide exchange factor, is a key signaling protein downstream of both the T- and B-cell receptors. VAV1 expression is restricted to blood and immune cells, including T and B cells. Preclinical studies have shown that targeted degradation of VAV1 protein via an MGD modulates both T- and B-cell receptor activity. This modulation is evident both in vitro and in vivo, demonstrated by a significant decrease in cytokine secretion, proteins vital for maintaining autoimmune diseases. Moreover, VAV1-directed MGDs have shown promising activity in preclinical models of neurologic and systemic autoimmune diseases and thus we believe have the potential to provide therapeutic benefits in multiple autoimmune indications, such as inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, and dermatological disorders. Preclinical studies demonstrate MRT-6160 inhibits disease progression in in vivo autoimmunity models. We expect to submit an IND for MRT-6160 in Q2 2024 and to initiate a Phase 1 single ascending dose / multiple ascending dose, or SAD/MAD, study in healthy volunteers in mid-2024.

Our development candidate for NEK7, MRT-8102, is a potent, highly selective, and orally bioavailable investigational molecular glue degrader of NEK7 and an inhibitor of the IL-1β and NLRP3 inflammasome pathway. MRT-8102 is the first development candidate for our NEK7 program, targeting diseases driven by IL-1β and the NRLP3 inflammasome. The NLRP3 inflammasome is a multiprotein complex that serves as a central node to integrate cellular signals generated by pathogens, damage and stress, and subsequently triggers the generation of pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as IL-1β. Aberrant NLRP3 inflammasome activation has been implicated in several inflammatory disorders including gout, cardiovascular disease, neurological disorders including parkinson's disease and alzheimer's disease, ocular disease, diabetes, obesity, and liver disease. NEK7 facilitates assembly and activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome in a kinase-independent manner, suggesting that degradation of NEK7 with an MGD molecule would be an attractive therapeutic approach to preventing NLRP3 activation and release of IL-1β. In light of the strategic importance of our NEK7 program, we are advancing a second, differentiated chemical series through Lead Optimization.

Our QuEENTM platform continues to generate discovery stage programs targeting therapeutically relevant proteins otherwise considered undruggable or inadequately drugged. We have been able to identify highly selective MGDs for CDK2, an oncology target and key driver of cancers such as breast, ovarian, and uterine cancer. Our CDK2 program is currently in lead optimization and we have identified selective and orally bioavailable molecules that show activity in preclinical in vivo models of hormone receptor positive breast cancer as single agents or in combination with CDK4/6 inhibitors.

We also continue to progress our discovery stage programs for multiple other undisclosed target proteins. Our focus is on target proteins that have been considered undruggable or insufficiently drugged, that are highly credentialed preclinically or clinically, and that can potentially move into the clinic in indications with high unmet need and substantial commercial potential.

In October 2023, our wholly-owned subsidiary, Monte Rosa Therapeutics AG, or Monte Rosa AG, entered into a strategic collaboration and licensing agreement with F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., or Roche Basel, and Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., or Roche US, and together with Roche Basel referred herein as Roche. Pursuant to the License Agreement, the parties will seek to identify and develop MGDs against cancer or neurological disease targets using our proprietary drug discovery platform for an initial set of targets in oncology and neuroscience selected by Roche, with Roche having an option to expand the collaboration with an additional set of targets under certain conditions, each target being subject to certain substitution rights owned by Roche. We will lead pre-clinical discovery and research activities until a defined point. Upon such point, Roche gains the right to exclusively pursue further pre-clinical and clinical development activities. Under the terms of the agreement, Monte Rosa received an upfront payment of $50 million, and is eligible to receive future preclinical, clinical, commercial and sales milestone payments that could exceed $2 billion, including up to $172 million for achieving pre-clinical milestones. Roche has an option to expand the collaboration with an additional set of targets under certain conditions. For the optional additional targets, Monte Rosa is entitled to receive from Roche an upfront payment of up to $28 million, and potential pre-clinical, clinical, commercial, and sales milestones exceeding $1 billion. We are also eligible to receive tiered percent royalties ranging from high-single-digit to low- teens on any products that are commercialized by Roche as a result of the collaboration.

We are led by an experienced team of drug discovery and development experts with deep experience in targeted protein degradation, molecular glues, chemistry, structural biology, data science, disease biology, translational medicine, and clinical development.

Monte Rosa Therapeutics AG, a Swiss operating company, was incorporated under the laws of Switzerland in April 2018. Monte Rosa Therapeutics, Inc. was incorporated in the State of Delaware in November 2019. The Company is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts with research operations in both Boston and Basel,

Switzerland. Our principal executive office is located at 321 Harrison Avenue, Suite 900, Boston, MA 02118 and our telephone number is (617) 949-2643. Information about us is available on our corporate websites at www.monterosatx.com. Information available on our website is not a part of, and is not incorporated into, this Annual Report. We trade on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the ticker symbol “GLUE”.

Our product pipeline

We have leveraged our QuEEN™ platform to generate our pipeline of product candidates with the potential to treat a diverse range of diseases through targeted protein degradation. Our current programs are focused on delivering therapies to target proteins that have been considered undruggable or inadequately drugged in well-characterized biological pathways across clinical indications in oncology, inflammation, immunology and other diseases with high unmet needs. We currently retain exclusive worldwide rights to the programs shown in the Figure 1 below, except for the discovery targets included in the Roche collaboration.

Figure 1: Monte Rosa Pipeline

Our strategy

Our mission is to discover and develop a portfolio of novel small molecule MGDs that selectively eliminate therapeutically-relevant proteins to benefit patients in a broad range of indications with significant unmet medical need. We believe the product candidates identified through our proprietary QuEENTM platform can provide distinct advantages over other modalities to address target proteins that have been considered undruggable or inadequately drugged.

Conventional small molecule inhibitor drugs generally work by interfering with the activity of a target protein through an interaction between the drug and a defined binding pocket on the target protein, typically an enzymatically active site of a protein. This limits the application of such drugs to proteins with a succinct binding pocket. Within this field, as binding pockets tend to be highly conserved within protein classes and families, achieving selectivity can be challenging. Even where a protein’s active site can be targeted, potentially with specificity, protein inhibition does not always provide the desired functional outcome.

MGDs on the other hand, provide for therapeutic opportunities not constrained by some of the key limitations of conventional small molecule inhibitor drugs. MGDs provide an opportunity to target a vast universe of target proteins not limited to those with a defined binding pocket, in a highly selective way, due to the diversity of surfaces that can be targeted, resulting in reversible elimination of a target protein. More specifically, because MGDs work by inducing protein-protein interactions between target proteins and an E3 ligase, they do not require a defined binding pocket on the target protein of interest. Thus, MGDs offer a unique opportunity to unlock significant target space and enable us to address target proteins that have been considered undruggable or inadequately drugged. The interaction surfaces we utilize are often not conserved within protein classes and families, allowing us to potentially achieve significant selectivity for our MGD product candidates that we believe is

superior to classical small molecule inhibitor drugs. Lastly, we focus on target proteins where experimental evidence suggests that removal of the target is superior to transiently inhibiting it, in particular proteins that have a scaffolding function.

Through our ability to produce potentially highly selective MGDs with fine-tuned speed and depth of degradation, we believe we can generate MGD product candidates with a wide therapeutic window that may be beneficial in a broad range of indications, including oncology, immunology, inflammation, metabolic diseases and diseases of the central nervous system or CNS. We believe our platform has the capability to produce MGDs suitable for distribution into any tissue, including MGDs designed to be CNS-penetrant, such as our VAV1-directed MGD MRT-6160 and our MGDs for NEK7, including MRT-8102.

Our precision oncology programs are focused on the elimination of proteins that are highly validated driver oncogenes in cancer cells (“oncogene addiction”), that define a cancer lineage dependence (“lineage addiction”), or that create a vulnerability specific to tumor cells (“synthetic lethality”). By tuning the speed and depth of degradation and leveraging our proprietary pharmacogenomic tools, we optimize our oncology MGDs to selectively target biomarker-positive cells. Our platform enables us to potentially tune the activity (depth and speed of degradation) of our MGDs to the most relevant tumor lineages to achieve maximal phenotypic effects.

In immunology, we are uniquely able to target highly credentialed immune signaling proteins in pathologically relevant immune pathways. These proteins may have a predominant scaffolding role , such as VAV1 and NEK7, an active site that is hard to target, such as VAV1, or may be considered to be undruggable by conventional small molecules. We prioritize target proteins that are validated through preclinical or clinical (including human genetic) evidence. We have shown that we are able to optimize our MGD product candidates to induce deep and selective degradation of immune-pathway relevant proteins.

Key elements of our strategy include:

Background on targeted protein degradation and molecular glues

Proteins are large, complex molecules that are involved in essentially all biochemical reactions that take place in the body. Many human diseases are associated with abnormal intracellular protein behavior driven by modified functional activation or inactivation of the protein itself. Given their critical role, proteins are attractive therapeutic targets, including those that act inside the cell and on its surface. While significant progress has been made in the development of therapeutics that address malfunctioning proteins, about 75% of human proteins are still considered undruggable by traditional small molecule inhibitors.

Challenges with druggable vs. undruggable proteins

The most common methods of targeting proteins, including intracellular proteins, involve traditional small molecule inhibitors that bind to a pocket in the protein and, there, act to inhibit or modify the function of the protein. Having such a pocket is what has traditionally led to a protein being considered druggable, yet most proteins lack suitably sized and shaped binding pockets. In particular, proteins such as transcription factors, those that act as scaffolding for other proteins, and modulators of enzyme activity, all of which can play a critical role in disease, often don’t have binding pockets suited for efficient ligand binding. The absence of a binding pocket presents a challenge to the development of traditional small molecule inhibitors. Other therapeutic modalities that can target such proteins, such as therapeutic antibodies, oligo-based nucleotides, and other genetic therapies, are limited in their ability to address aberrant protein behavior. Some of the therapeutic modalities have meaningfully advanced the treatment of disease and improved the quality of life for millions of patients. However, these modalities face specific challenges related to their mode of delivery, scalability, and their therapeutic application. A summary of characteristics of various therapeutic modalities compared to MGDs is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: The Next Generation of Precision Medicine-Based Small Molecule Drugs; Selectively Editing the Human Proteome with Rationally Designed MGDs

Molecular glues: a new approach to protein degradation

A new and promising approach to modulating protein function using small molecules in cells has been elucidated: targeted protein degradation. Protein degradation is one of the body’s natural processes by which proteins are eliminated from human cells through the attachment of a molecular tag, called ubiquitin, to a protein by any of the approximately 600 human E3 ligases, marking the protein for degradation by the proteasome in the cell. Targeted protein degradation can be induced by small molecule-based degraders, including both PROteolysis Targeting Chimeras, or “PROTACs”, and MGDs. It was found that lenalidomide, an approved best-selling drug in multiple indications, functions as a small molecule-based degrader, or as an MGD, more specifically. In one of these indications, multiple myeloma, lenalidomide acts by causing two disease-driving transcription factors, IKZF1 and IKZF3, that lack druggable pockets, to bind to cereblon, an E3 ligase protein, resulting in their degradation. In this context, lenalidomide leads to the formation of a complex of IKZF1 and IKZF3 with cereblon by inducing surface complementarity between the components of the complex rather than by binding of the MGD into a succinct binding pocket on the protein target.

We believe the targeted protein degradation approach offers many features that make it an attractive therapeutic modality:

As mentioned above, there are multiple advantages of the protein degradation approach, but one of the most beneficial is the potential to achieve greater therapeutic efficacy resulting from the durable but reversible removal of a target protein from the cellular proteome.

Current approaches to protein degradation

While lenalidomide is an MGD, the majority of recent drug discovery efforts in the design of protein degraders has been focused on PROTACs. These heterobifunctional degraders are composed of two separate small molecules connected by a chemical linker. One molecule binds to a necessary binding pocket on the target protein and the other to a component of the E3 ubiquitin ligase complex. Binding of the PROTAC to both the protein of interest and the E3 ligase brings the target protein into proximity of the E3 ligase, resulting in tagging of the protein of interest for degradation. While this represents a novel way to eliminate therapeutically-relevant proteins from cells, we believe an MGD approach offers the following advantages over PROTACs:

Current well-established approaches to protein degradation are illustrated in Figure 3. As shown in Figure 3, MGDs are non-heterobifunctional and do not require an active site or binding pocket on target proteins. We believe these properties potentially expand the universe of amenable target proteins while also maintaining the favorable drug-like properties of small molecule therapeutics.

Figure 3: Molecule Glue Degraders; Expanding Target Space, Fostering a New Generation of Drugs

Our approach

We design and develop molecular glue degraders or MGDs in a rational and iterative approach using our industry-leading and dynamic QuEENTM platform, summarized in Figure 4.

MGDs are small molecule-based protein degraders designed to modify an E3 ligase’s binding specificity and thus can employ the body’s natural mechanisms of protein destruction to selectively eliminate therapeutically-relevant proteins. Lenalidomide and pomalidomide are two approved drugs that were found to function as MGDs by causing the degradation of therapeutically-relevant proteins through the induced interaction with the E3 ligase cereblon, and provide clinical validation to the MGD approach.

Following the discovery that the clinically and commercially successful lenalidomide and pomalidomide were in fact MGDs, it was believed that the discovery of MGDs would mostly be through serendipitous findings, that MGDs could not be rationally designed and optimized to high levels of selectivity and achieve drug-like properties through conventional medicinal chemistry efforts, and that the target protein space for this approach is limited. Our QuEENTM platform was designed and built to address these issues. With QuEENTM we can discover and develop MGD product candidates that are potentially potent, selective and have favorable drug like properties in a target-centric, prospective and rational way against a wide variety of target proteins.

Figure 4: QuEENTM is Redefining the Rules of MGD Discovery

We believe our platform has the potential to continue to deliver MGD product candidates that could address target proteins that have been considered undruggable or inadequately drugged, while possessing attractive pharmaceutical properties. As shown in Figure 5, our initial programs are utilizing cereblon as the E3 ligase system to tag target proteins. Through our generation of data-at-scale, AI/ML platform and proprietary MGD library we have expanded and continue to expand chemical and target space. Further, we have started using the platform to leverage other E3 ligase systems as well.

Figure 5: Our Rational Approach to Unleash the Full Potential of MGDs

Our proprietary and industry-leading QuEENTM discovery engine was built to support our target-centric approach to the discovery and development of MGD drugs that degrade a wide landscape of therapeutically-relevant target proteins by (i) understanding how to reprogram the surface of endogenous E3 ligases using small molecules (ii) systematically identifying degrons and other surface features on target proteins that may enable degradation by E3 ligases through our approach; and (iii) rationally designing MGDs that can be optimized towards high potency and selectivity, with favorable pharmaceutical properties. Our proprietary library of rationally designed MGDs currently includes about 50,000 unique small molecules built around 400 cereblon binding scaffolds. Through our platform, we have built expertise that allows us to induce a high degree of surface complementarity between the

E3 ligase and a target protein, potentially leading to high potency and selectivity for the therapeutically-relevant target proteins we select. Figure 6 provides a schematic overview of some of the most unique and critical features our QuEENTM platform.

Figure 6: Monte Rosa’s QuEENTM Discovery Engine; An Industry Leading Target-Centric Approach to MGD Discovery and Development

Our proprietary and industry leading Quantitative and Engineered Elimination of Neosubstrates discovery engine, or QuEENTM discovery engine, encapsulates our team’s deep and growing expert knowledge and discovery capabilities across biology, chemistry and computational sciences, from which we are generating our library and pipeline of MGD product candidates. Our experienced team of data scientists, structural biologists, biochemists, biologists and chemists have innovated proprietary tools designed to broadly match our MGDs against degron-containing target proteins. Our MGD design capabilities are driven by both in silico and laboratory-based assays that predict and assess the ability of our MGDs to induce the binding of target proteins to E3 ligase components, such as cereblon, and directly measure target degradation.

Central to our QuEENTM discovery engine is a detailed understanding of the molecular interactions promoted by our MGDs between E3 ligases and therapeutically-relevant target proteins, which have been considered undruggable or inadequately drugged. We believe this depth of knowledge allows us to leverage our platform to rationally design MGDs with favorable pharmaceutical properties that have the potential to translate into clinical success across multiple therapeutic areas. Our capabilities have been developed through key features of our QuEENTM discovery engine, which include our AI/ML engines, proprietary MGD library, and our toolbox of assays and capabilities used to generate data-at-scale.

Our process of degron discovery and MGD design is highly iterative and interdisciplinary and is guided by our experience and powerful AI modeling. Computational predictions and analyses guide our high throughput screening and chemo-proteomics, which in turn provide more information to feed back into the AI engine, and all the accumulated knowledge is used to guide our MGD library expansion. For example, MGD discovery and development for a protein target can pass from degron identification, to MGD hit identification, to in silico improvement, to a round of chemo-proteomics validation, to chemical library alterations and back, until we reach the desired selectivity and degradation.

Figure 7: Monte Rosa's Proprietary QuEENTM Discovery Engine Iteratively Integrates Predictions, Designs, and Data Generation for Target Identification and MGD Design

Target identification and MGD discovery is guided by AI/ML algorithms and large, proprietary datasets

We have developed sophisticated and proprietary AI-powered algorithms that are trained on both internal and external datasets. We have established a large, moated database of proteomics, structural biology, high throughput screens, and virtual screens. We have used these data to learn the rules of MGD discovery, connecting protein surfaces to MGD feature activity, and created a suite of AI/ML modules for E3 ligase reprogrammability assessment, target identification and MGD design.

Figure 8: Monte Rosa’s Proprietary AI/ML Engine allows for Discovery of Glueable Target Proteins and Highly Selective MGDs

Our AI/ML engine fAIceit identifies reprogrammable E3 ligases and glueable target proteins

We have developed sophisticated and proprietary AI-powered algorithms to mine databases of protein sequences and structures, including structures determined from x-ray crystallography and cryoEM, and structures from predicted protein folding. We believe one of our key advantages is our focus on protein surface characterization, integrating topological, structural and sequence features associated with published, or canonical, as well as newly discovered, or non-canonical, degrons and encode these features into fAIceit™, our AI/ML-powered algorithm. fAIceit comprises our suite of AI-powered algorithms that include modules leveraging highly customized multi-dimensional geometric deep learning, deep neural networks, and quantum and molecular dynamics to characterize E3 ligase surfaces, such as patches with propensity to form protein-protein interactions (PPIs) and the presence of small molecule ligand-binding pockets. We developed these tools using publicly available three-dimensional protein structures to successfully identify proteins with surface features associated with known cereblon canonical degrons. Using our growing repository of ternary complex structures induced by our proprietary chemistry that show novel binding modes and associated neosurfaces, we have successfully deployed fAIceit to computationally predict more disease-associated protein targets that have these novel surface features and are thus potentially addressable using our library of cereblon-binding MGDs. Indeed, we have confirmed many proteins with the potential to be neosubstrates, including many in disease relevant pathways.

A key feature of the fAIceit process is the ability to integrate new discoveries from our proximity screening platform: as we characterize the activity of our expanding MGD library, fAIceit learns more degron features and, projecting these features into the entire proteome, identifies more potential neosubstrates targetable by our MGDs. We are also applying fAIceit to identify candidate complementary target proteins to E3 ligases beyond cereblon.

Figure 9: Monte Rosa’s Protein Surface Exploration AI Engines

Our AI/ML engines enable in silico discovery of novel and highly selective MGDs

We have developed sophisticated and proprietary AI-powered algorithms for all stages of drug development, from library design and hit identification through to lead optimization. The engine includes modules for in silico docking, molecular fingerprinting, SAR cliff discovery, generative designs and enumeration, ADMET models, synthesis path filtering, structure- and ligand-based virtual screening for on- and off-target activity, and ternary complex models. Evaluation of the model allows us to rapidly predict which parts of the MGD anatomy are involved in target recruitment and which parts may be modified. This enables us to maintain or enhance the target-specific potency of the MGD, while optimizing its selectivity, and its other chemical and biological properties.

In practice, we match a protein target to an E3 ligase using fAIceit. For novel E3 ligases, we have performed virtual screening using our algorithm Headlong™ and successfully identified novel ligand binders that we then expanded into full virtual libraries using our generative chemistry algorithm Flash™ and ML-based ADMET models GlueAID™. We then use our HitMan™ algorithm to design physical small molecule libraries that take into account the E3 ligase induced-surface.

For hit expansion and MGD optimization, our ternary complex algorithm, which we have named Rhapsody™, is used to generate an in silico model of the MGD-specific, MGD-induced ternary complex. We use the ternary complex models for the design of novel MGDs, for virtual screening, for structure activity relationship or SAR optimization, and for in-depth medicinal chemistry optimization. Our platform leverages ensembles, molecular dynamics and quantum mechanics to identify and prioritize MGDs for synthesis and testing. Combined with Flash generative designs and GlueAID ADMET models, Rhapsody virtual screens create and identify novel MGDs that are predicted to induce neosubstrate-specific ternary complex formation, have excellent ADMET properties, are available for rapid synthesis, and can be prioritized for follow-up experiments.

While many of our tools were initially developed around cereblon as an E3 ligase we are now extending their use to additional E3 ligases.

Our Proprietary MGD library

We discover and develop lead MGDs for degron-containing target proteins by screening our MGD library of currently around 50,000 MGD molecules, and applying proximity screening tools, our chemo-proteomic capabilities and our knowledge of the cereblon-binding site and variations in degron structures. Our highly diverse library of MGDs is continuing to expand based on our growing expertise in MGD design and development captured in QuEENTM. We have developed unique and innovative synthetic chemistry approaches to access over 400 scaffolds, each designed to probe three-dimensional structural and chemical property space differently. These scaffolds are being utilized as building blocks to generate our proprietary library of highly diverse compounds. The modular construction of our library allows us to explore different areas of chemical space and follow-up rapidly on hits from our library. As shown in Figure 10, our highly diverse library of MGDs leverages different areas of the cereblon surface to engage diverse degrons and target proteins. Our library has given rise to multiple series of MGDs for each of the target proteins currently being studied across our disclosed and undisclosed portfolio.

Figure 10: Monte Rosa Proprietary MGD Library: A Novel and Structurally Diverse Cereblon-Centric Library

Our high-throughput proximity screening platform for the rapid assessment of our MGD library

We have developed a suite of high-throughput assays that measure specific steps of the MGD-induced cascade and allow for rapid assessment of our proprietary MGD library and any MGDs generated during specific programs. Coupled with customized automation systems for screening in 384 and 1586-well formats, our set of assays can measure ternary complex formation in both a biochemical and cellular format, as well as measure degradation of target proteins in cells. We are using our tailored suite of biochemical and cellular assays to screen, identify and rapidly optimize our MGDs.

Figure 11: Customized Automation and High-Throughput Assays Enable Rapid Assessment of MRT Library

Our quantitative proteomics profiling assays for neosubstrate identification and MGD optimization

Utilizing our expertise in mass-spectrometry-based proteomics, we have developed a suite of high throughput quantitative profiling assays to assess multiple parameters, including cellular target degradation, selectivity of degradation, target ubiquitination, and ternary complex formation in cells. We utilize this information in multiple ways, including:

We use these assays to validate screen hits, to support MGD optimization during lead optimization programs, but also to identify novel neosubstrates that our AI/ML platform is not yet predicting. Screening of our MGD library with the proximity and degradation-based assays provides additional unbiased data to identify novel degrons and train our computational degron prediction algorithms to further expand the target space.

Using our custom software tools we have created BaseCamp, a proprietary database for storage, analysis, and visualization of proteomics data which includes hundreds of novel target discoveries.

Figure 12: Proteomics platform accelerates degron and MGD discovery and optimization

Our structural biology platform supports the rational design of our MGDs

Leveraging our expertise and capabilities in high-throughput crystallization and cryo-electron microscopy, we have established a robust pipeline for generating high resolution protein structures. We use structural insights derived from these to support the design our MGD library, rationally optimize our MGDs for a prioritized protein target, and validate novel binding modes and degrons. Using our custom software tools, we have created a database of our proprietary structures, which we have included into BaseCamp. Our database houses ternary complex structures of more than 10 different protein targets, and as shown in Figure 14, includes multiple novel binding modes that are highly diverse in structure and sequence.

Figure 13: Proprietary Database of Experimental Structures Supports the Rational Design of our MGDs

Figure 14: Novel Binding Modes that are Highly Diverse in Structure, Sequence

As shown in Figure 15, our QuEENTM platform has enabled us to discover a broad landscape of degrons and degron-containing proteins. We have used our AI engine and a rational design approach to discover MGDs that are exquisitely selective. All combined, this allows us to potentially eliminate therapeutically-relevant target proteins in pathways that are highly relevant for diseases with high unmet need in oncology, immunology, inflammation as well as other diseases.

Figure 15: Discovering Diverse Degrons and Developing Highly Selective MGDs Against Them

QuEENTM expansion

Our QuEENTM platform was originally focused on identifying and developing MGDs that induce the binding of degron-containing neosubstrates to cereblon as a means of targeting them for degradation. We are expanding the scope of QuEENTM to further grow the cereblon target space, to leverage additional E3 ligases for targeted protein degradation, and to extend the utility of our MGDs as next-generation antibody conjugates.

Expanding the universe of neosubstrates or target proteins and recruitment of such to additional E3 ligases through the continued identification of degrons has the potential to bring more therapeutically-relevant target proteins into the universe of degradable targets, which we anticipate will allow us to address additional therapeutic target proteins that are undruggable or insufficiently drugged.

Our Precision Medicine Approach for MYC-driven Cancers

MRT-2359, a highly selective and orally bioavailable GSPT1-directed molecular glue degrader (MGD) in development for the treatment of MYC-driven cancers

Overview

MRT-2359 is an orally bioavailable MGD that we have shown using extensive in vitro and in vivo studies to induce the degradation of GSPT1. GSPT1 (also known as eRF3a) is a translation termination factor that helps catalyze the termination of protein synthesis, facilitating the release of mRNA and newly synthesized protein from the ribosomal protein synthesis machinery. We have identified GSPT1 as a potential therapeutic vulnerability for MYC-driven cancers. MRT-2359, our GSPT1-directed MGD, is designed to preferentially affect growth and survival of cancer cells addicted to protein translation, such as those driven by high expression and activity of MYC family transcription factors. In vivo, once daily oral dosing of MRT-2359 led to a potent anti-tumor activity in MYC-driven, cell-line-derived xenograft models as well as patient-derived xenograft models of NSCLC and SCLC. MRT-2359 is currently in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial for the treatment of MYC-driven and high-grade neuroendocrine tumors (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05546268).

Development of GSPT1-directed MGDs to Target Downstream Vulnerabilities of MYC Activation

In humans, the MYC family transcription factors comprise three proteins, c-MYC, L-MYC, and N-MYC. Upon activation in tumor cells, MYC family transcription factors can function as oncogenes. They have long been recognized as drivers of multiple human cancers and are among the most frequently mutated, translocated and highly expressed oncogenes. However, despite several decades of drug discovery efforts, MYC has remained largely recalcitrant to new drug development and no approved therapies directly or indirectly targeting MYC family transcription factors have been developed to date.

It is well established that abnormal activation of MYC through translocation or high levels of expression results in uncontrolled cell growth that is associated with high rates of protein synthesis and ramp up of the protein translation machinery. MYC-driven tumors are therefore widely believed to be addicted to protein translation, and this addiction to protein translation creates an inherent dependency on critical components of the translation machinery, such as GSPT1, illustrated in Figure 16. As part of our research program, we identified GSPT1 as a potential novel vulnerability of MYC-driven cancers and, based on this observation, we believe that targeting GSPT1 with MGDs represents a viable approach for the treatment and management of patients with MYC-driven cancers. We believe that the administration of our GSPT1-directed MGD product candidate, MRT-2359, has the potential to address a critical downstream vulnerability of oncogenic MYC activation and provide a unique opportunity for therapeutic intervention.

Figure 16: The Role of GSPT1 in MYC-driven, Translationally Addicted Cancer Cells

Targeting GSPT1 with MRT-2359 (preclinical data and studies)

MRT-2359 is a potent and selective GSPT1-directed MGD discovered and rationally designed using our QuEENTM platform. Key features and parameters of MRT-2359 are provided in Figure 17.

Figure 17: MRT-2359 is a Selective and Orally Bioavailable GSPT1-directed MGD Rationally Designed Using our QuEENTM Discovery Engine

As shown in Figure 18, MRT-2359 has optimized depth of degradation to achieve preferential activity in MYC high cancer cells. Compared with a non-optimal GSPT1 degrader, MRT-2359 displays preferential activity in MYC driven NSCLC cells, as shown in the top right panel. The optimal level of GSPT1 degradation to achieve

preferential activity in MYC high cells is approximately 60-70% as determined by Western blot, as shown in the left panel.

Figure 18: MRT-2359 Has Optimized Depth of Degradation to Achieve Preferential Activity in MYC High Cancer Cells

As shown in Figure 19, the sole ectopic overexpression of L-MYC or N-MYC was sufficient to sensitize initially insensitive NSCLC cells (NCI-H2023) to MRT-2359, corroborating a pivotal role of GSPT1 for the survival of MYC-driven cancer cells and demonstrating the potential of MRT-2359 to selectively inhibit growth and survival of L- and N-MYC expressing tumor cells. We believe these studies establish a causal link between L-MYC and N-MYC expression and the sensitivity to MRT-2359 not seen for other agents.

Figure 19: Overexpression of L-MYC or N-MYC is Sufficient to Sensitize Initially Resistant NSCLC Cells to MRT-2359

Preferential activity of MRT-2359 on growth and survival of MYC-driven cells was further validated in a panel of representative lung cancer cell lines. As shown in Figure 20, MRT-2359 profoundly and preferentially affected growth and survival of MYC-driven cell lines, such as high L- and N-MYC expressing NSCLC and SCLC lines,

compared to their MYC low expressing counterparts. Similar observations were made in neuroendocrine or NE positive versus negative lung cancer cell lines.

Figure 20: Preferential Activity of MRT-2359 in MYC High NSCLC, SCLC or Neuroendocrine (NE) Positive Cancer Lines

As shown in Figure 21, MRT-2359 induced significant ribosomal stalling at the stop codon of mRNA transcripts only in the MYC high cell lines such as the NSCLC cell lines NCI-H1155. Only minimal effects on ribosomes were seen in the MYC low cell line NCI-H2023. In addition, MRT-2359 rapidly and completely abrogated protein synthesis in NCI-H1155 cells while exhibiting only marginal effects on translation and protein synthesis in NCI-H2023 cells.

Figure 21: MRT-2359 Strongly and Preferentially Impaired Protein Translation in the N-MYC High Compared to the MYC Low NSCLC Cancer Cell Line

As shown in Figure 22, down modulation of the N-MYC oncogene and of its downstream target genes was observed in the NCI-H1155 cell line following MRT-2359 induced degradation of GSPT1. Further, N-MYC could

not be detected in the NCI-H2023 cell line, and no significant effects were detectable on N-MYC downstream target genes after degradation of GSPT1.

Figure 22: MRT-2359 Downmodulated N-MYC and Its Downstream Target Genes in the N-MYC High Compared to the MYC Low NSCLC Cancer Cell Lines

Collectively, we believe that the inhibition of growth and survival of MYC-driven versus MYC-independent tumor cells results from a combination of (i) preferential degradation of GSPT1 in cancer cells with high MYC expression, (ii) inhibition of translation, whereby MRT-2359-induced reduction of GSPT1 preferentially impairs protein synthesis in tumor cells with high MYC expression and (iii) downregulation of MYC expression and transcription activity in MYC-addicted but not MYC-independent tumor cells, as depicted in Figure 23.

Figure 23: Three Mechanisms Driving Preferential Activity in MYC High Cancer Lines

As shown in Figure 24, MRT-2359 demonstrated significant dose-dependent anti-tumor activity in vivo, including regressions, in an NCI-H1155 cell line-based xenograft model of NSCLC with high N-MYC expression, and in an NCI-H1836 cell line-based xenograft model of SCLC with high L-MYC expression. In these studies, MRT-2359 was dosed orally (PO) once daily (QD) at 1, 3 and 10 mg/kg.

Figure 24: Anti-tumor Activity of MRT-2359 in the N-MYC High NCI-H1155 NSCLC and L-MYC High NCI-H1836 Xenograft Models

The anti-tumor activity of MRT-2359 was further assessed in 78 fully annotated lung cancer patient-derived xenograft, or PDX, models.

As shown in Figure 25, oral dosing of MRT-2359 demonstrated preferential activity in models expressing high levels of N-MYC in NSCLC PDXs, and in models expressing high levels of N-MYC, L-MYC and/or neuroendocrine features in SCLC and neuroendocrine lung cancer PDXs, including numerous instances of tumor regressions. Pharmacodynamic modulation of GSPT1 measured through targeted mass spectrometry in seven representative models was approximately -60%, in line with the optimal PD modulation seen in vitro, as depicted in Figure 18.

Figure 25: MRT-2359 Demonstrated Preferential Anti-tumor Activity in MYC High or Neuroendocrine (NE) Lung Cancer PDXs

Non-small cell lung cancer

Lung cancer is the third most frequent cancer in the United States and the most frequent cause of cancer-related death. In 2020, there were an estimated 228,820 new cases and 135,720 patients were estimated to have died. NSCLC accounts for 85% of all lung cancer cases. Despite significant advances over the last 2 decades, treatment outcomes in NSCLC remain unsatisfactory. Overall, 25% of all patients are alive 5 years or more after diagnosis (Ettinger, et al. 2021). Patients in early stages can achieve long-term remission or even cure with surgery, with or without chemotherapy; however, patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease remain incurable, with palliative treatment options to prolong survival at best. The 5-year survival rate for metastatic disease is approximately 6% when patients receive cytotoxic chemotherapy (Ettinger, et al. 2021). Development of novel targeted therapies and immunotherapies has improved 5-year survival rates to approximately 15% to 50% in some patients. In advanced/metastatic NSCLC, first-line therapy typically includes chemotherapy with or without programmed cell death protein 1/programmed death-ligand 1 antibodies, monotherapy with programmed cell death protein 1/programmed death-ligand 1 antibodies, or targeted therapies in patients with druggable EGFR, ALK, ROS1, BRAF, MET, NTRK, or RET alterations. First-line therapy has an expected progression-free survival between 4 to 6 months in case of chemotherapy, 8 to 10 months for immunotherapy/chemoimmunotherapy, and up to 18 or more months for targeted therapies. Recently, a KRAS G12C inhibitor has been added to the therapeutic armamentarium to be used in previously treated KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC (Skoulidis, et al. 2021).

Our analysis of real-world data (from real world molecular and genomic data analysis in collaboration with Tempus Labs, Inc.) revealed that N-MYC is highly expressed in about 10% NSCLC-adenocarcinomas.

Small cell lung cancer

SCLC accounts for approximately 15% of all lung cancers, or about 30,000 new cases a year in the United States. SCLC is a rapidly progressive disease with short overall survival after initial therapeutic responses. SCLC is derived from neuroendocrine cells and is distinguished clinically from NSCLC by its rapid doubling time and the early development of metastases. Most patients have metastatic disease at the time of their initial diagnoses. Unlike in NSCLC, which has seen a steady stream of new drug approvals over the last 2 decades, the progress and consequent improvement in treatment outcomes in SCLC have been more modest. The 5-year survival rate for patients with extensive stage SCLC, which accounts for 80% of all patients diagnosed, remains at 3% with a median survival between 10 to 13 months. Patients with limited stage SCLC can be treated with combined chemoradiation; however, the 5-year survival rates fluctuate between 30% to 40%. Most patients with SCLC are responsive to chemotherapy, but eventually relapse. Cisplatin or carboplatin in combination with etoposide remains the backbone for the first-line therapy. In extensive stage SCLC, immune checkpoint inhibitors

atezolizumab and durvalumab have been approved for use in conjunction with chemotherapy. Overall response rates for chemotherapy, with or without immunotherapy, are around 60%; however, the median progression-free survival ranges from 4 to 5 months and the overall survival ranges from 10 to 13 months. Upon relapse, patients are offered alternative therapies based on their quality and duration of response to initial treatment, but most are chemotherapy-based such as retreatment with platinum and etoposide in patients with platinum-sensitive disease or second-line regimens such as lurbinectedin or topotecan. Expected outcomes in previously treated patients remain unsatisfactory with response rates between 25% to 35%. There are no targeted therapeutics available for SCLC patients.

Our analysis of real-world data (from real world molecular and genomic data analysis in collaboration with Tempus Labs, Inc.) revealed that L-MYC or N-MYC mRNA are highly expressed in about 72% of SCLC tumor samples.

Potential Indications

We believe that there are multiple other tumor types, beyond NSCLC and SCLC, in which the MYC pathway is highly activated. As shown in Figure 26, in addition to the current indications included in the MRT-2359-001 Phase 1/2 clinical study, future indications may include c-MYC driven cancer types such as prostate cancer including tumors with the ARV7 splice variant and hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.

Figure 26: Potential Opportunities in MYC-Driven Tumors

We believe that our preclinical studies support the potential activity of MRT-2359 against c-MYC driven cancers. As shown in Figure 27, MRT-2359 is active in preclinical studies as a single agent and in combination with standard of care against prostate cancer including cancers with ARV7 splice variant.

Figure 27: Anti-tumor Activity of MRT-2359 in Preclinical Models of Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer

Figure 28 illustrates that MRT-2359 is active in preclinical studies as a single agent and in combination with standard of care against ER/MYC-positive breast cancer tumor xenografts.

Figure 28: Anti-tumor Activity of MRT-2359 in Preclinical Model of ER/MYC-positive Breast Cancer

MRT-2359-001 Phase 1/2 Study

Our ongoing Phase 1/2, open-label, multicenter study, illustrated in Figure 29, is designed to assess the safety, tolerability, PK, PD, and preliminary clinical activity of MRT-2359 in patients with previously treated selected solid tumors. In the Phase 1 dose escalation portion of the clinical trial, we are enrolling patients with tumors that have a significant likelihood of being MYC-driven, including patients with NSCLC, SCLC, high-grade neuroendocrine cancer of any primary site, DLBCL and patients with solid tumors that harbor L-MYC or N-MYC amplifications. In this phase of the trial, tumors will be tested retrospectively for biomarkers of MYC activation. Patients will receive escalating doses of MRT-2359 to determine the maximum tolerated dose or MTD and recommended Phase 2 dose or RP2D.

Once the MTD and/or RP2D are determined, the anti-tumor activity of MRT-2359 will be assessed in the Phase 2 portion of the study, which will enroll NSCLC and SCLC patients stratified per L-MYC or N-MYC expression, and patients with solid tumors with L-MYC or N-MYC amplification, amongst others.

Dosing is currently ongoing in backfill cohorts at clinically active doses determined using the 5 days on, 9 days off-drug dosing schedule, and in dose escalation cohorts using a 21 days on, 7 days off-drug schedule, starting at 0.5 mg per day. Once the RP2D is identified, the study is expected to advance to Phase 2 expansion cohorts, which include monotherapy with MRT-2359 in NSCLC, SCLC and solid tumors with L-MYC or N-MYC amplification. NSCLC and SCLC expansion cohorts will utilize a two-stage design and patients will be stratified per L-MYC and/or N-MYC expression levels in the tumor. Potential inclusion in the Phase 2 study of additional cohorts such as a combination of MRT-2359 with the estrogen-receptor antagonist fulvestrant in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer and a combination of MRT-2359 and the androgen-receptor antagonist enzalutamide in non-neuroendocrine prostate cancer is under consideration.

Figure 29: MRT-2359 Phase 1/2 Clinical Study Design

Interim Results from MRT-2359-001 Phase 1/2 Study

In October 2023, we reported interim data from the Phase 1 dose escalation part of the ongoing Phase 1/2 open-label, multicenter study of MRT-2359 in patients with MYC-driven solid tumors, including lung cancers and high-grade neuroendocrine cancer. We believe our interim clinical data from the MRT-2359 study demonstrated favorable tolerability, pharmacokinetic (PK), and pharmacodynamic (PD) profiles in heavily pre-treated patients with lung cancers and high-grade neuroendocrine cancer. We observed that MRT-2359 significantly reduced GSPT1 protein levels in patient tumors and we were very encouraged to report early evidence of tumor size reductions, including partial responses, in two heavily pretreated patients with biomarker-positive tumors, including one confirmed and one unconfirmed partial response.

At the analysis cutoff date of September 7, 2023, 21 patients had been dosed, with 15 of the 21 patients evaluable for clinical activity.

As shown in Figure 30, MRT-2359 displayed dose dependent plasma exposure, in line with preclinical PK models. No food effect was observed. MRT-2359 displayed deep GSPT1 degradation in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) at all dose levels. PD modulation in PBMCs was observed across all dose levels; the level of degradation of ~ 60% was in line with optimal degradation observed in preclinical studies, each observed using targeted mass spectrometry as the method of analysis, and with the levels we observed in preclinical studies.

Figure 30: MRT-2359 Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics

As shown in Figure 31, MRT-2359 reduced GSPT1 protein expression in human tissue biopsies. GSPT1 degradation was assessed from pre-treatment screening biopsies and biopsies taken at day 19. Matched biopsies were obtained from 11 patients across the 3 cohorts analyzed. GSPT1 expression was assessed using targeted mass spectrometry. Optimal PD modulation was seen in tissue biopsies with an average of ~ 60% degradation of GSPT1 measured across all cohorts. PD modulation was in line with the degree of GSPT1 degradation seen preclinically at dose levels that showed anti-tumor activity using same assay (targeted mass spectrometry). The level of degradation was equivalent across all dose levels, suggesting saturated PD responses from 0.5 mg to 2 mg and supporting that pharmacodynamically, 0.5 mg is a fully active dose.

Figure 31: MRT-2359 Pharmacodynamics in Human Tissue Biopsies

At the September 7th, 2023 data cutoff, of the 15 evaluable patients that have been administered MRT-2359 across three dose cohorts (0.5 mg, 1 mg, and 2 mg in a 5 days on-drug, 9 days off-drug dosing schedule), we identified six as biomarker-positive in indicated tumor types, specifically N-MYC high non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) adenocarcinoma, L-/N-MYC high small cell lung cancer (SCLC), L-/N-MYC high-grade neuroendocrine tumors (prostate, bladder, and others) and neuroendocrine tumors of the lung.

We reported that we observed clinical activity across all dose levels. Of the six biomarker positive patients, we reported that two experienced a partial response (PR), of which one was confirmed and one unconfirmed, and one SCLC patient exhibited stable disease and had remained on therapy for over 4 months as of the data cutoff.

Figure 32 illustrates the best observed tumor response per RECIST 1.1 criteria. In addition, one patient with NSCLC and unclear biomarker status remained on therapy for more than 7 months as of the data cutoff with stable disease.

No clinical activity was reported in biomarker negative patients.

Figure 32: Best Observed Tumor Response in Biomarker Positive Patients

Included in our interim data release, Figure 33 shows computed tomography (CT) scans from a patient with high grade neuroendocrine bladder cancer with a confirmed partial response. The baseline tumor biopsy demonstrated high N-MYC expression. The patient had four prior lines of therapy including chemotherapy and pembrolizumab. The patient initiated on 2 mg of MRT-2359 for the first 5 days on, 9 days off drug regimen. The dose was then lowered stepwise to 0.5 mg and the patient remained on therapy for over 3 months as of the data cutoff date. The CT scan after 4 weeks demonstrated a partial response (-34% per RECIST 1.1) that continued to improve at week 8 (-59% per RECIST 1.1).

Figure 33: CT Scans from High Grade Neuroendocrine Bladder Cancer Patient

Included in our interim data release, Figure 34 shows computed tomography (CT) scans from a patient with non-small cell lung adenocarcinoma with small cell lung cancer/neuroendocrine (SCLC/NE) transformation. The baseline tumor biopsy demonstrated SCLC/NE transformation, low L- and M-MYC expression. The patient had multiple lines of prior therapy including chemotherapy, pembrolizumab and atezolizumab. The patient initiated on 0.5 mg of MRT-2359. The CT scan after approximately three weeks demonstrated resolution of liver metastases (-41% per RECIST 1.1). The patient experienced frequent dose interruptions due to bowel obstruction deemed unrelated to MRT-2359 and showed progression in a follow up scan attributed to the lack of sufficient dose intensity.

Figure 34: CT Scans from non-small cell lung adenocarcinoma patient with small cell lung cancer/neuroendocrine transformation

As reported in our interim data release, we believe the MRT-2359 safety data summarized in Figure 35 support further clinical development. There were no observations of previously reported limitations of other GSPT1-targeted agents, including no observed clinically significant hypocalcemia or hypotension associated with cytokine release syndrome at any dose level. The 0.5 mg and 1 mg dose levels of MRT-2359 resulted in Grade 1 or 2 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) only, which were primarily GI-related and manageable. At the 2 mg dose level, Grade 4 thrombocytopenia (dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), n=2) and Grade 4 neutropenia (non-DLT, n=1) were observed, findings consistent with preclinical toxicology studies. No patients discontinued treatment due to AEs at

any dose level, and the Grade 4 AEs observed at the 2 mg dose were transient and resolved with dose reductions.

Based on the favorable tolerability profile of MRT-2359 reported in our interim data release, we expanded our protocol to allow our investigation of a denser dosing schedule of 21 days on, 7 days off dosing schedule, starting at 0.5 mg.

Figure 35: Summary of Treatment-Related Adverse Events (AEs) in > 2 patients

We are encouraged by the progress MRT-2359 continues to make in the clinic, including the continuing evidence of a favorable tolerability profile and encouraging early signs of clinical activity. We are also encouraged that our observations of early clinical activity are in biomarker positive patients, reinforcing our belief in our hypothesis that GSPT1 is a therapeutic vulnerability in MYC-driven tumors. We look forward to continuing to advance our clinical evaluation of MRT-2359.

CDK2-directed MGD molecules for the treatment of cancer

Cyclin dependent kinases, or CDKs, are a family of closely related kinases that regulate progression through the cell cycle. CDK activity is modulated by specific cyclins. For example, cyclin E1 activates cyclin-dependent kinase 2, or CDK2, as shown in Figure 36. CDK2 can be activated in tumors by the amplification or overexpression of Cyclin E1 or E2. Cyclin E1 dysregulation has been found in several cancers, including ovarian and triple negative breast cancer. In addition, cyclin E1 dysregulation and CDK2 activation has also been found to be one of the mechanisms of resistance in estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer patients treated with CDK4/CDK6 inhibitors such as ribociclib. Therefore, we believe selective elimination of CDK2 using CDK2-directed MGDs may provide benefit to these patients. Previously reported small molecule inhibitors and PROTACs of CDK2 have been limited in their selectivity due to the high degree of similarity among the active sites of kinases, in particular within the CDK family itself. We have identified multiple MGD molecules that selectively promote the association of CDK2 and cereblon in vitro, while avoiding other CDKs. Through ongoing lead optimization chemistry, the most advanced compounds are orally bioavailable and can robustly and selectively induce CDK2 protein degradation in multiple cancer cell lines in vitro and in disease relevant models in vivo, leading to strong tumor growth inhibition.

Figure 36: CDK2 is One of the Key Regulators of the Cell Cycle

Lead optimization towards orally bioavailable CDK2-directed MGDs

Our CDK2-directed MGDs form a strong ternary complex with CDK2 and cereblon through a newly characterized non-canonical degron which was unveiled through application of our QuEENTM platform technologies. The unique character of the CDK2 degron interaction with cereblon, and the optimized features of our MGDs provide a high degree of selectivity over closely related proteins such as CDK1, CDK4, and CDK9. Our MGDs are orally bioavailable with favorable in vitro ADMET properties and pre-clinical safety profiles.

In vitro data

Our lead CDK2-directed MGD MRT-9643 selectively degrades CDK2 and reduces E2F pathway proteins, with no significant effect on other CDKs or other kinases, as shown in Figure 37. Our data also support that our CDK2 MGD MRT-9643 blocks DNA replication during S phase in CDK2 dependent cells and inhibits cellular proliferation in a concentration-dependent manner.

Figure 37: CDK2-directed MGD MRT-9643 is Selective and Shows Biological Activity in a CDK2 Dependent Cell Line

In vivo data

Oral dosing of our CDK2-directed MGD MRT-9643 at 10 mg/kg and 100 mg/kg achieved dose-proportional exposures in tumor bearing mice, as shown on Figure 38. In line with this, 5-day oral BID dosing resulted in dose-dependent degradation of CDK2 protein in a breast cancer cell line derived xenograft model. Furthermore, in a cell line based xenograft model of estrogen-receptor positive breast cancer using MCF7 cells oral administration at 30 mg/kg and 100 mg/kg BID for 25 days was shown to synergize with the CDK4/6i ribociclib in an leading to ~94% tumor growth inhibition (TGI) at bose dose levels used for MRT-9643, when compared to 58% TGI induced by ribociclib treatment alone.

Figure 38: Oral Dosing of CDK2-directed MGD MRT-9643 Induces Tumor Growth Inhibition (TGI) in vivo

Our Approach for Immunologic and Inflammatory Diseases

Our QuEEN platform has generated multiple programs with potential applications in immunological and inflammatory diseases, including our VAV1 program, for systemic and central nervous system autoimmune diseases, and our NEK7 program, for IL-1β/NLRP3 driven Inflammatory Diseases.

MRT-6160, a highly selective and orally bioavailable VAV1-directed molecular glue degrader (MGD) in development for the treatment of T- and T-/B-cell mediated autoimmune diseases

Overview

VAV1 is a Rho-family guanine nucleotide exchange factor that plays a critical role in T- and B-cell receptor signaling and activity. As many autoimmune diseases are thought to be driven by an underlying dysregulation or hyperactivation of T- and/or B-cell receptor signaling, a VAV1-directed MGD, which we believe will ameliorate aberrant responses from both cell types, has broad potential application for autoimmune diseases.

There are multiple published reports providing preclinical data that supports VAV1’s potential as an attractive target for attenuating T- and B-cell activity. Examples of such reports include that VAV1 knockout mice are viable, fertile, display various loss-of-function T- and B-cell phenotypes and are protected from experimentally induced autoimmune disease; and whole-genome CRISPR screens in primary human T cells that indicate a role for VAV1 as a key player in T-cell function and showing that genetic loss of VAV1 confers loss of IL-2 secretion (summarized in Figure 39).

Figure 39: VAV1 is a Highly Validated Target for Attenuating T-cell and B-cell Activity

Furthermore, in vivo, once daily oral dosing of MRT-6160 inhibited disease progression in well-established models of multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and inflammatory bowel disease. We believe the public literature, summarized above, coupled with our data package, summarized below, provides strong support for a VAV1 MGD in multiple important systemic and central nervous system autoimmune diseases. Based on this support, we are advancing our VAV1 development candidate, MRT-6160 towards clinical studies. As of March 2024, MRT-6160 has concluded IND-enabling safety assessment and IND filing is expected in Q2 2024 and initiation of a Phase 1 clinical trial anticipated in mid-2024.

Development of VAV-directed MGDs

A summary of the VAV1 signaling pathway is illustrated in Figure 40. We believe our VAV1-directed MGDs have the potential to modulate both T- and B-cell function as well as the cross talk between these cell types when activated in autoimmune disease. Despite being a preclinically validated target for attenuating T- and B-cell activity, VAV1 has remained undruggable to date using small molecule inhibitor approaches. Therefore, targeting VAV1 with a VAV1-directed MGD and eliminating its activity could provide therapeutic benefits in multiple T- and/or B-cell mediated autoimmune diseases.

Figure 40: VAV1 is a Key Regulator of T- and B-cell Receptor Activity

MRT-6160 is a first-in-class molecular glue degrader of VAV1 and is our first development candidate for our VAV1 program. MRT-6160 forms a strong ternary complex with VAV1 and cereblon through a newly characterized non-canonical degron which was unveiled through application of our QuEENTM platform technologies. The unique character of the VAV1 degron and its interaction with cereblon induced by MRT-6160 result in a high degree of selectivity over commonly degraded neosubstrates and other VAV family proteins. MRT-6160 degrades human VAV1 with a DC50 of 7 nM and Dmax of 97%, is orally bioavailable across species, and displays favorable in vitro ADMET properties. The favorable drug-like profile of MRT-6160 is summarized in Figure 41.

Degradation of VAV1 in the periphery is observed following MRT-6160 oral administration. Additionally, MRT-6160 has brain penetrance with anticipated dose dependent degradation of VAV1 in the CNS. Non-clinical safety profiling showed a clean profile with respect to mutagenicity (mini-Ames), hERG activity, CYP inhibition and induction, and broad off-target screening (CEREP panel). We recently completed preclinical GLP toxicology studies in rats and non-human primates, demonstrating a highly favorable profile with no significant changes in peripheral immunophenotyping assessments compared to controls.

Figure 41: MRT-6160 is a Potent, Selective VAV1 MGD Development Candidate with a Favorable Drug-Like Profile

The potency and selectivity profile of MRT-6160 was characterized in primary human peripheral mononuclear blood cells (hPBMCs). As shown in Figure 42, left panel, MRT-6160 elicited dose-dependent degradation of VAV1 in primary human T and B cell subsets. As shown in Figure 42, right panel, tandem mass tag (TMT)-global proteomics assessment revealed selective degradation of VAV1 over its closely related family members VAV2 and VAV3 in addition to other proteins expressed in hPBMCs.

Figure 42: MRT-6160 Selectively degrades VAV1 in primary human immune cells

MRT-6160 was further characterized for anticipated on-target pharmacodynamic and functional activity in primary human T and B cells. As shown in Figure 43, In primary human T cells (top panel), VAV1 degradation by MRT-6160 resulted in inhibition of TCR-mediated pharmacodynamic (CD69) and functional activity (IL-2 secretion and proliferation). In primary human B cells (bottom panel), VAV1 degradation by MRT-6160 resulted in inhibition of

BCR-mediated pharmacodynamic (CD69) and functional activity (IL-6 and soluble IgG secretion) demonstrating expected on-target activity in disease-relevant cell types.

Figure 43: VAV1 degradation by MRT-6160 results in inhibition of T- and B-cell receptor activity

In vivo validation of VAV1 MGD MRT-6160

To determine the oral bioavailability and subsequent pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of MRT-6160 in vivo, mice were orally administered a single dose of 10 mg/kg MRT-6160. PBMC, and spleen samples were collected at 2, 6, and 24 hours post-dosing. As shown in Figure 44, concentrations of MRT-6160 were comparable in both serum and spleen with a proportional decrease over 24 hours (left panel). Furthermore, VAV1 protein levels were reduced in both PBMCs and spleen tissue within 6 hours of administration of MRT-6160 (left panel) and maintained for 24 hours (right panel), suggesting significant degradation of VAV1 protein induced by MRT-6160.

Figure 44: Oral dosing of MRT-6160 leads to rapid degradation of VAV1 in vivo

Given these favorable PK/PD properties in mice, MRT-6160 was evaluated in a various well-established T- as well as T- and B-cell mediated in vivo models of autoimmune disease. In a T-cell-mediated experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) model of multiple sclerosis, (Figure 45, left panel) daily oral dosing of MRT-6160 following disease onset inhibited disease progression in a dose-dependent manner comparable to that of supraphysiological doses of dexamethasone, a corticosteroid used broadly in autoimmune disease. After 6 days of dosing, samples from mice were assessed by western blot for murine (m) VAV1 levels in diseased tissue. Shown in the right panel of Figure 45, MRT-6160 induced dose-dependent degradation of mVAV1 commensurate with inhibition of disease progression.

Figure 45: MRT-6160 elicits dose-dependent activity in a T-cell mediated Multiple Sclerosis Autoimmune Disease Model

MRT-6160 was also evaluated in a T- and B-cell mediated collagen-induced arthritis (CIA) model of rheumatoid arthritis. Mice were orally administered MRT-6160 daily following disease onset and scored for clinical signs of disease. As shown in Figure 46, left panel, 1 mg/kg MRT-6160 inhibited disease progression comparably to 10 mg/kg anti-TNF⍺. The right panel of Figure 46 shows that treatment with MRT-6160 reduced the serum levels of anti-collagen II IgG1 and total anti-collagen II IgG antibodies demonstrating inhibition of auto-antibody production.

Figure 46: MRT-6160 inhibits disease progression and auto-antibody production in the collagen-induced arthritis disease model

MRT-6160 was also evaluated in a T-cell transfer-induced model of colitis. Mice were orally administered vehicle or MRT-6160 daily following T-cell transfer. Anti-TNF⍺ was administered intraperitoneally every third day as a standard of care control. As shown in Figure 47, left panel, oral dosing with 1 mg/kg MRT-6160 demonstrated superior disease inhibition compared to 10 mg/kg anti-TNF⍺. The right panel of Figure 47 shows mesenteric lymph node CD4+ T cell assessment by flow cytometry where MRT-6160 reduced the frequency of IL-17A+ and TNF⍺+ CD4+ T cells, known drivers of inflammatory bowel disease in humans. Collectively, preclinical data for

MRT-6160 demonstrate significant on-target attenuation of TCR and BCR-mediated activity both in vitro and in multiple preclinical in vivo models of T- and T/B-cell mediated disease.

Figure 47: MRT-6160 Inhibits Disease Progression and Cytokine Production in a Model of Inflammatory Bowel Disease

MRT-6160 has been progressed to non-human primate in vivo studies for further characterization. In a five day, multiple-dose study, MRT-6160 exhibited dose dependent plasma concentrations as the doses increased. Moreover, as shown in Figure 48, MRT-6160 elicited dose dependent degradation on day 1. By day 5, all dose levels showed >90% reduction in VAV1 protein levels and upon ceasing MRT-6160 administration, VAV1 protein recovered to pre-dose levels by day 10.

Figure 48: MRT-6160 Induces VAV1 degradation in Non-Human Primates that is Reversible Following Dosing Cessation

Indication Overview

We believe that VAV1’s mechanism of action provides for broad therapeutic potential for systemic and central nervous system autoimmune diseases, and we look forward to advancing MRT-6160 towards proof of concept. Within the autoimmune disease space, both peripheral and CNS based, we are currently evaluating clinical development studies to establish initial proof of concept in ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple

sclerosis, and myasthenia gravis. We do not consider this list to be exhaustive, and we will continue to evaluate additional indications as our clinical programs advance.

Ulcerative Colitis

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is one of the two primary forms of idiopathic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). UC is a chronic, relapsing inflammatory disease of the large intestine and rectum characterized by inflammation and ulceration of mainly the mucosal and occasionally submucosal intestinal layers. Estimated prevalence of UC is approximately 236 cases per 100,000 persons in Europe and 242 cases per 100,000 persons in United States (Ng, et al. 2017, da Silva B, et al. 2014).

Hallmark clinical symptoms of UC include diarrhea, bloody stool and abdominal pain. The clinical course is marked by exacerbation and remission (Dignass, et al. 2012) Patients with UC are at an increased risk for colon cancer, and the risk increases with the duration of disease as well as extent of colon affected by the disease (Rutter, et al. 2004). Approximately 15% of UC patients experience a severe clinical course, and 30% of these patients require removal of the colon/rectum, to eliminate the source of the inflammatory process, although accompanied by significant morbidity (Aratari, et al. 2008). Colectomy rates have been trending lower with increased use of biologics (Wong et al, 2019).

The aim of medical treatment in UC is to control inflammation and reduce symptoms. Available pharmaceutical therapies are limited, do not always completely abate the inflammatory process, and may have significant adverse effects. Therapies for mild to moderate active UC include 5-aminosalicylic acid derivatives and immunosuppressants. Corticosteroids are used in patients with more severe symptoms but are not useful for longer term therapy due to associated toxicities. Patients with moderate to severe symptoms may derive some benefits from immunomodulatory agents such as azathioprine, 6-mercaptopurine, or methotrexate; however, the use of these agents is limited as induction treatment due to a slow onset of action (3 to 6 months) and as maintenance therapy due to toxicities including bone marrow suppression, infections, hepatotoxicity, pancreatitis, and malignancies (Kornbluth, et al. 2010; Beaugerie, et al. 2009).

Biological agents targeting specific immunological pathways have been evaluated for their therapeutic effect in treating patients with UC. Anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents were the first biologics to be used for IBD. Infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab are approved for the treatment of UC. Vedolizumab, an anti-adhesion therapy, as well as IL-12/-23 targeting biologics, have been approved for the treatment of IBD. Potential risks with anti-TNF therapies include infusion or injection site reactions, serious infections, lymphoma, heart failure, lupus-like syndromes, and demyelinating conditions (Turner, et al. 2010). Despite the beneficial results achieved with the available biologic agents, only 17% to 45% of patients who receive them are able to achieve clinical remission (Rutgeerts, et al. 2005; Sandborn, et al. 2012; Feagan, et al. 2005; Sandborn, et al. 2014).

More recently, oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors and sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor (S1PR) modulators have been approved, in the post-anti-TNF setting and in non-pretreated patients, respectively. These options offer alternatives to biologics, but also have limitations. JAK inhibitors have safety concerns reflected in U.S. FDA “black box” warnings, and S1PRs require ECG prior to treatment initiation due to potential transient decrease in heart rate. Some improvement in maintenance clinical remission rate have been reported, ranging from 32% to 57% (Sandborn, et al. 2021; Sandborn, et al. 2023; Danese, et al. 2022). There remains a clear medical need for additional therapeutic options in UC for patients with inadequate response to or intolerance to conventional therapies and biologic therapies.

Rheumatoid Arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic systemic inflammatory disease of unknown etiology. The hallmark feature of RA is an inflammatory process manifested by persistent symmetric polyarthritis of synovial joints which can ultimately lead to bone erosions, deformity, and disability. Left untreated, or inadequately treated, progressive functional impairment with increasing disability occurs leading to a reduction in quality of life. The prevalence of RA in the general population is approximately 1%, and increases with age in both genders, with women being more prone to developing RA than men. Early therapy with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) is the standard of care, including conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) such as methotrexate, sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine, and leflunomide, and biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) such as anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) and non-anti-TNF biologics.

Despite major progress in the treatment of RA, there still remains a large unmet medical need, as only a small percentage of RA patients reach or maintain a status of low disease activity (LDA) or clinical remission (CR) over time, and many patients discontinue standard of care treatments due to safety or tolerability issues. Novel

therapies are therefore needed to complement the available interventions to address the unmet need (Burmester, et al. 2014; Emery, 2014; Meier, et al. 2014).

Multiple Sclerosis

Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is a chronic, immune-mediated disease of the central nervous system (CNS) characterized by inflammation, demyelination, and axonal/neuronal destruction, ultimately leading to severe disability. MS affects approximately 2.5 million individuals worldwide.

Relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) is the most frequent clinical presentation of the disease. Approximately 85% of patients present with RRMS, characterized by recurrent acute exacerbations (relapses) of neurological dysfunction followed by recovery. After 15 to 20 years, ~50% of patients with RRMS have progressed to secondary progressive MS (SPMS), which is a stage of the disease characterized by continuous worsening of disability that occurs independently of relapses. The term of relapsing MS applies to those affected patients either with a RRMS or SPMS with superimposed relapses. Patients with relapsing MS constitute a common target for current treatment options. There are no clear criteria that mark the transition from RRMS to SPMS (EMA/CHMP/771815/2011, Rev. 2. 2015).

For patients with relapsing MS, interferon-β and glatiramer acetate have long been used as first-line drugs. However, these drugs require frequent self-injections and increase the burden on patients. In recent years, oral drugs such as fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate and teriflunomide have become available and enhanced the convenience of treatment for patients. In addition, treatment with more potent biologic drugs including natalizumab, alemtuzumab and ocrelizumab have been put into practice. Despite the increased options available, many patients experience disease activity that cannot be fully controlled, in part due to the heterogeneity of MS, and some patients cannot tolerate the currently available drugs. The need therefore remains to develop drugs with alternative mechanisms of action, convenient dosing, and a favorable safety profile.

Clinical Development Plan

As illustrated in Figure 49, our Phase 1 healthy volunteer single ascending dose / multiple ascending dose SAD/MAD program expected to be initiated in mid-2024, subject to IND clearance by FDA, is designed to enable assessment of safety and pharmacokinetics and lead to candidate doses for the subsequent stages. The healthy volunteer study is expected to be followed by a series of early proof of concept (PoC) studies in indications supported by preclinical data. These PoC studies are planned to cover various T and T- and B-cell-mediated indications, including potentially ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, multiple sclerosis, myasthenia gravis, psoriasis, and cutaneous lupus erythematosus.

Figure 49: Preliminary MRT-6160 Development Plan Through Early POC (Subject to Regulatory Clearance)

NEK7-directed MGDs for the treatment of inflammatory disease

Overview

Activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome critically depends on NIMA related kinase 7, or NEK7, a serine/threonine-protein kinase that facilitates assembly of the active NLRP3 inflammasome complex in a kinase-independent manner. The NLRP3 inflammasome is a multi-protein complex that serves as a central node to integrate signals generated by pathogens, damage and stress, and triggers the generation of pro-inflammatory cytokines. As depicted in Figure 50, aberrant NLRP3 inflammasome activation and the subsequent release of active interleukin-1β (IL-1β) and interleukin-18 (IL-18) has been implicated in several inflammatory disorders including gout, cardiovascular disease, inflammatory bowel disease, neurodegenerative diseases including Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease, ocular disease, diabetes, obesity, liver disease and Type 2 inflammatory diseases such as asthma and urticaria. The assembly of NEK7 and NLRP3 with ASC and pro-caspase 1 induces cleavage of pro-caspase 1, which then activates the cytokines IL-1β and IL-18 and leads to their release via a cell death event known as pyroptosis. NEK7 has been shown to be required for NLRP3 inflammasome activation and IL-1β release both in vitro and in vivo. Furthermore, our own in vitro and in vivo work, described below, shows that NEK7 is critical for the production of IL-1β downstream of NLRP3 inflammasome activation. Consequently, we believe NEK7 degradation with a highly selective MGD, such as our product candidate MRT-8102, has the potential to inhibit and/or prevent NLRP3 inflammasome activation and the associated downstream production of IL-1β, and thereby to be an important treatment modality for a variety of inflammatory diseases.

Figure 50: NEK7 is an Essential Regulator of the NLRP3 Inflammasome and Release of IL-1β and IL-18

In the setting of gout, monosodium urate (MSU) crystals deposit in joints, acting as endogenous danger signals to activate the NLRP3 inflammasome, causing an acutely painful inflammatory reaction mediated by IL-1β, shown in Figure 51.

Figure 51: Monosodium Urate Crystals Activate the NLRP3 Inflammasome and are a Causative Agent in Gout

Identification of NEK7 degron and NEK7-directed MGDs

NEK7 contains a well-defined degron, as identified using our proprietary QuEENTM platform and confirmed by crystal structure (shown in Figure 52, left panel). Given the kinase-independent role of NEK7 in activating the NLRP3 inflammasome, suggesting that inhibition of the catalytic activity of NEK7 would be ineffective in blocking NLRP3 inflammasome activation, we believe that degradation of NEK7 with our MGDs will be preferable over conventional catalytic inhibition strategies. We have generated MGDs from multiple chemical series that promote the association of NEK7 with cereblon. Our first NEK7 product candidate, MRT-8102, derived from one of these series, is a NEK7-directed MGD with favorable drug-like properties that has been selected to move forward into IND-enabling studies (shown in Figure 52, right panel). MRT-8102 is a first-in-class NEK7 MGD. MRT-8102 forms a strong ternary complex with NEK7 and cereblon through a canonical G-loop degron that results in profound NEK7 degradation (DC50 10 nM and Dmax 89%). MRT-8102 is highly selective over commonly degraded cereblon neosubstrates and other NEK family members, it is orally bioavailable across species, and displays favorable in vitro ADMET properties. Non-clinical safety profiling showed a clean profile with respect to mutagenicity (mini-ames), hERG activity, and broad off-target screening (CEREP panel).

Figure 52: MRT-8102 is a Potent, Selective Development Candidate NEK7 MGD with a Favorable Drug-Like Profile

The amino acid sequence of the NEK7 degron is unique among the NEK family members, indicating the potential to identify MGDs that are highly selective for NEK7. As shown in Figure 53, human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) were treated with MRT-8102 for 24 hours, followed by TMT-global proteomic profiling. Highly selective and profound degradation of NEK7 is evidenced by selective fold-change decrease in NEK7 protein, without significant changes in other detected proteins. Other NEK family members are highlighted on the volcano plot and were not degraded. Several other cell types, including U937, Kelly, MM1S and induced pluripotent stem cells reveal similarly selective proteomic profiles when treated with MRT-8102.

Figure 53: MRT-8102 Induces Highly Selective NEK7 Degradation

Development Candidate NEK7 MGD, MRT-8102, achieves high potency modulation of the NLRP3 pathway in human monocyte-derived macrophage and cynomolgus whole blood stimulation assays

To assess the functional impact of NEK7 degradation on NLRP3 inflammasome activation, we treated human monocyte-derived macrophages (hMDM), with increasing concentrations of MRT-8102 or MCC950, an NRLP3 inhibitor. We measured caspase-1 activation and IL-1β release from hMDM following pre-treatment with our MGD and subsequent exposure to inflammasome stimulators LPS and MSU crystals. The MSU stimulus is relevant to the setting of gout, where high uric acid levels lead to accumulation of MSU crystals in joints and the subsequent pathogenic activation of NLRP3 inflammasome. As shown in Figure 54, MRT-8102 led to a dose-dependent decrease in caspase-1 activity (top left) and IL-1β release (bottom left) which was more potent than the effect of MCC950, a direct inhibitor of the ATPase activity of NLRP3 itself. We also performed a similar assay in cynomolgus monkey whole blood using LPS and nigericin as NLRP3 inflammasome stimuli. In this setting, MRT-8102 was also shown to be superior to a different NLRP3 inhibitor, selnoflast, in inhibiting caspase-1 activity (top right) and IL-1β release (bottom right).

Figure 54: MRT-8102 Achieves Potent Inhibition of NLRP3 Inflammasome in Human and Monkey Cells In Vitro

In vivo validation of NEK7 MGD MRT-8102 as a potent inhibitor of IL-1β

MRT-8102 is orally bioavailable and has been progressed to in vivo studies in cynomolgus (cyno) monkeys. In a five day, multiple-dose study of MRT-8102, no unusual clinical observations were reported. MRT-8102 was administered once-daily for 5 days at 5 mg/kg to a single male and female cyno monkey. PBMC samples were collected at 0 (pre-dose) and 24 hours post-dose on Days 1 and 5, and on Days 10 and 15. As shown in Figure 55, left panel, data represent the average cyno PBMC NEK7 protein levels on the y-axis. PBMC NEK7 degradation showed reduction to 44% of pre-dose levels on day 1, that was further reduced to 15% by day 5. Upon ceasing MRT-8102 administration, NEK7 protein recovered to pre-dose levels by day 15.

Commensurate with NEK7 levels, production of IL-1β was inhibited in an ex vivo whole blood stimulation assay, shown in Figure 55, right panel. Similar results were obtained when measuring caspase-1 activity. The deep and

sustained inhibition of IL-1β release in the ex vivo assay after oral administration over five consecutive days suggests that MRT-8102 is capable of controlling inflammation driven by IL-1β.

Figure 55: In Vivo Dosing of MRT-8102 in Cynomolgus Monkeys Leads to NEK7 Degradation and Inhibition of IL-1β Release

NEK7 MGDs for diseases of the CNS

The NLRP3 inflammasome plays a crucial role in inflammatory responses in the CNS and represents a promising therapeutic target for the treatment of neuroinflammation-associated neurological diseases. The identification of multiple chemical series within the NEK7 program offers a significant opportunity for the development of multiple drug-like MGDs with differentiated profiles. Our NEK7-directed MGDs, including MRT-8102, are selective, orally bioavailable and can penetrate the blood-brain-barrier, hence are potentially applicable to target inflammatory diseases of the CNS.

In light of the strategic importance of our NEK7 program, we are advancing a second, differentiated chemical series through Lead Optimization. As shown in Figure 56 (left panel), a representative NEK7-directed MGD has been progressed to in vivo studies in mice to assess the evidence of blood-brain barrier penetration. In a single dose study at 10 mg/kg, the compound demonstrated favorable bioavailability and brain penetration with a Kpuu of 0.8 (ratio of free plasma to free brain concentration), supporting the potential of this class. The compound exhibits high potency with regards to modulation of the NLRP3 pathway in a human monocyte-derived macrophage assay. Figure 56 (right panel) shows a dose-dependent decrease in caspase-1 activity and IL-1β release which was more potent than the NLRP3 inhibitor selnoflast.

Multiple compounds with favorable drug-like features and CNS exposure from the differentiated chemical series are currently under characterization and we are planning to advance an additional Development Candidate in the future.

Figure 56: Evidence of Brain Penetration for NEK7 MGD with Potent Activity in an In Vitro Functional Assay

Other programs

We are specifically focused on developing product candidates for target proteins that have been deemed undruggable or inadequately drugged. Our QuEENTM platform was purpose-built to support the discovery and development of drugs that degrade a wide landscape of therapeutically-relevant proteins by (i) systematically identifying therapeutically-relevant target proteins that may be amenable to molecular glue-based degradation; and (ii) rationally designing molecules that can be optimized towards high potency and selectivity, with properties that we believe to be favorable. Our early pipeline includes programs in genetically defined oncology indications, as well as inflammatory, immunologic and other disease indications. We are further engaged in the discovery of additional target proteins in other indications, including, but not limited to, neurodegenerative and other neurological diseases. Figure 57 illustrates some of our key accomplishments.

Figure 57: Monte Rosa Therapeutics; From Serendipity to Rational Design of MGDs

Our services, collaboration and licenses agreements

Roche agreement

On October 16, 2023, Monte Rosa Therapeutics AG, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Monte Rosa Therapeutics, Inc., entered into a Collaboration and License Agreement with F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd (“Roche Basel”) and Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. (“Roche US” and together with Roche Basel, “Roche”) (the “Agreement”). Pursuant to the Agreement, the parties will seek to identify and develop molecular glue degraders (“MGDs”) against cancer or neurological disease targets using our proprietary drug discovery platform for an initial set of targets in oncology and neuroscience selected by Roche, with Roche having an option to expand the collaboration with an additional set of targets under certain conditions, each target being subject to certain substitution rights owned by Roche. We will lead pre-clinical discovery and research activities until a defined point. Upon such point, Roche gains the right to exclusively pursue further pre-clinical and clinical development activities.

Under the Agreement, Roche will have a worldwide, exclusive license under patents and know-how controlled by us to develop and commercialize products directed to applicable targets. The research collaboration activities governed by the Agreement will be overseen by a joint research committee.

Under the terms of the agreement, we received an upfront payment of $50 million, and are eligible to receive future preclinical, clinical, commercial and sales milestone payments that could exceed $2 billion, including up to $172 million for achieving pre-clinical milestones. Roche has an option to expand the collaboration with an additional set of targets under certain conditions. For the optional additional targets, we are entitled to receive from Roche an upfront payment of up to $28 million, and potential pre-clinical, clinical, commercial, and sales milestones exceeding $1 billion. We are also eligible to receive tiered royalties ranging from high-single-digit percent to low-teens percent on any products that are commercialized by Roche as a result of the collaboration.

Unless earlier terminated, the Agreement will remain in effect for each product licensed under the Agreement until expiration of the royalty term for the applicable product. The parties have included customary termination provisions in the agreement, allowing termination of the Agreement in its entirety, on a country-by-country or a target-by-target basis.

Competition

The biotechnology industry is extremely competitive in the race to develop new products and the industry is characterized by a high level of innovation and strong emphasis on proprietary products and intellectual property rights. While we believe we have significant competitive advantages due to our management team’s years of

expertise in protein degradation, molecular glues and clinical and preclinical development of precision medicines in general, coupled with our unique scientific expertise and our growing portfolio of intellectual property rights, we currently face and will continue to face competition for our development programs from other companies that develop heterobifunctional degraders, similar molecular glue degraders or have protein degradation development platforms and their own associated intellectual property. Our competition will also include companies focused on existing and novel therapeutic modalities such as small molecule inhibitors antibodies and gene therapies. The competition is likely to come from multiple sources, including large and specialty pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies and academic institutions that are in the business of research, development, manufacturing and commercialization. Moreover, the existence of large numbers of patents and frequent allegations of patent infringement is typical in our industry.

Competitors in our efforts to develop MGD therapeutics for patients, include, but are not limited to, BioTheryX Therapeutics, Inc., C4 Therapeutics, Inc., Nurix Therapeutics, Inc., Kymera Therapeutics, Inc., Seed Therapeutics, Inc., Plexium Inc, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Proxygen GmbH, VantAI, Inc., Orionis Biosciences, Inc., Dunad Therapeutics, Ltd, and Captor Therapeutics, SA, all of whom have reported having MGD product candidates in preclinical or clinical development. In addition, lenalidomide and pomalidomide, which are both marketed by Bristol-Myers Squibb, have been shown to function as MGDs. Further, several large pharmaceutical companies have disclosed investments in this field.

In addition to the competitors we face in developing small molecule-based protein degraders, we will also face competition in the indications we expect to pursue with our MGD programs. Many of these indications already have approved standards of care which may include existing therapeutic modalities. In order to compete effectively with these existing therapies, we will need to demonstrate that our MGDs perform favorably when compared to existing therapeutics.

Manufacturing

We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities for the production of our product candidates and we currently have no plans to build our own clinical or commercial scale manufacturing capabilities. We currently contract with third-party contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, for the manufacture of our product candidates and we intend to continue to do so in the future. We rely on and expect to continue to engage on third-party manufacturers for the production of both drug substance and finished drug product. We currently obtain our supplies from these manufacturers on a purchase order basis and do not have long-term supply arrangements in place. Should any of these manufacturers become unavailable to us or their services to us become delayed for any reason, we believe that there are a number of potential replacements, although we may incur some delay in identifying and qualifying such replacements.

Intellectual property

We are an innovation-driven company and we seek to aggressively protect the innovations, intellectual property, and proprietary technology that we generate that we consider important to our business, including by pursuing patent applications that cover our product candidates and methods of using the same, innovations around our industry leading QuEENTM platform and our proprietary library of MGDs, as well as any other relevant innovations, inventions, and improvements that are considered potentially commercially relevant to the development of our business and to maintain our perceived competitive advantages. We also rely on trade secrets, know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our proprietary and intellectual property position. For our product candidates, we generally intend to pursue patent protection covering compositions of matter, pharmaceutical compositions, methods of use, including combination therapies, methods of administration including dosing methods, methods for monitoring potential clinical events, compositions and methods for personalizing, monitoring, and potentially refining clinical use, including biomarkers, processes of manufacture and process intermediates, where relevant. For our QuEENTM platform, we generally intend to pursue patent protection covering our approaches, methods, and research and development tools relevant to our degron database, our Rhapsody, tools, and our library of MGDs. We continually assess and iteratively refine our intellectual property strategies as we develop new innovations and product candidates. We currently plan to continue to invest in filing additional patent applications based on our intellectual property strategies to continue to build value in our business and/or to improve our business and potential partnering opportunities, where appropriate.

Our commercial success depends, in part, on our ability to obtain, maintain, enforce and protect our intellectual property and other proprietary rights for the technology, inventions and improvements we consider important to

our business, and to defend any patents we may own or in-license in the future, prevent others from infringing any patents we may own or in-license in the future, preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets, and operate without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the valid and enforceable patents and proprietary rights of third parties.

As with other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, our ability to maintain and solidify our proprietary and intellectual property position for our product candidates and technologies will depend on our success in obtaining effective patent claims and enforcing those claims if granted. However, our pending provisional and Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, patent applications, and any patent applications that we may in the future file or license from third parties, may not result in the issuance of patents and the validity and/or enforceability of any of our issued patents may be challenged by third parties. Further, as with other companies, the patents we may obtain do not guarantee us the right to practice our technology in relation to the commercialization of our products. Regarding obtaining issued patents, here in the United States as well as in other jurisdictions of interest to our business, the patent positions for biopharmaceutical companies like us are generally uncertain and can involve complex legal, scientific, and factual issues. Further, the laws governing the protection of intellectual property may change over time due to the issuance of new judicial decisions or the passage of new laws, rules or regulations. In addition, the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before a patent is issued and its scope can be reinterpreted and challenged even after issuance. As a result, we cannot guarantee that any of our product candidates will be protected or remain protectable by valid, enforceable patents. We also cannot predict whether the patent applications we are currently pursuing will issue as patents in any particular jurisdiction or whether the claims of any issued patents will provide sufficient proprietary protection from competitors. Any patents that we hold may be challenged, circumvented, or invalidated by third parties.

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

Patents and Patent Applications

As of December 31, 2023, we solely owned a patent portfolio that included thirty-one (31) pending patent families, including fifteen pending patent application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty and multiple pending United States provisional patent applications. Our portfolio is being built to cover our MGDs product candidates and various uses thereof, MGDs drawn to currently undisclosed target proteins and uses thereof, and our industry-leading QuEENTM platform, as further described below. Patent prosecution related to our portfolio is currently in the early stages and, as such, no patent examiner has yet fully scrutinized the merits of any of our pending patent applications.

Wholly Owned Product Candidates

With respect to our GSPT1 program, as of December 31, 2023, our portfolio included one United States provisional patent application, four pending PCT patent applications, five pending non-provisional patent application in the United States, and patent applications in Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Europe, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Singapore and South Africa that cover various GSPT1-directed MGDs and uses thereof. These patent applications are drawn to composition of matter, pharmaceutical compositions, and methods of using our GSPT1-directed MGDs. We also owned one pending non-provisional U.S. application and

one pending European application, that cover biomarkers related to use of our GSPT1-directed MGDs. The earliest scheduled expiration of any U.S. or foreign patent drawn to our GSPT1-directed MGDs, if such patent is issued, would be 2040, excluding any additional term for available patent term adjustment or patent term extension, and assuming timely payment of all applicable maintenance or annuity fees.

With respect to our CDK2 program, as of December 31, 2023, our portfolio included three pending PCT applications that cover various CDK2-directed MGDs and uses thereof. The earliest scheduled expiration of any U.S. or foreign patents issuing from these PCT applications or U.S. provisional patent applications, if such patents are issued, would be 2042, excluding any additional term for available patent term adjustment or patent term extension.

With respect to our NEK7 program, as of December 31, 2023, our portfolio included one U.S. provisional patent application that covers various NEK7-directed MGDs and uses thereof. The earliest scheduled expiration of any U.S. or foreign patents issuing from these U.S. provisional patent applications, if such patents are issued, would be 2044, excluding any additional term for available patent term adjustment or patent term extension.

With respect to our VAV1 program, as of December 31, 2023, our portfolio included one U.S. provisional patent application that covers various VAV1-directed MGDs and uses thereof. The earliest scheduled expiration of any U.S. or foreign patents issuing from these U.S. provisional patent applications, if such patents are issued, would be 2044, excluding any additional term for available patent term adjustment or patent term extension.

QuEENTM platform

With respect to our QuEENTM platform, as of December 31, 2023, our portfolio included one U.S. provisional patent application, two pending U.S. non-provisional patent applications, one pending European patent application and four pending PCT patent applications drawn to our QuEENTM platform and uses thereof for the design, discovery, and development of MGD product candidates. The earliest scheduled expiration of any U.S. or foreign patent issuing from these U.S. provisional patent applications, if such patents are issued, would be 2042, excluding any available additional term for patent term adjustment or patent term extension.

Trademarks

As of December 31, 2023, we owned various registered and unregistered trademarks in the United States, including Monte Rosa Therapeutics, our housemark logo, the name of our QuEENTM platform, and the name of our Glueomics resource.

Trade Secrets and Know How

As an innovation driven biotechnology company, we rely on trade secrets, technical know-how and continuing innovation to develop and maintain the competitive advantage relevant to our business. Under the agreements we enter into with our employees and consultants, full rights in any intellectual property are assigned to us. We also rely on confidentiality or other agreements with our employees, consultants, other advisors and business partners to protect our proprietary information. Our policy is to require third parties that receive material confidential information to enter into confidentiality or other agreements with us that contain appropriate protections for our confidential and trade secret information.

Government regulation

The FDA and other regulatory authorities at federal, state and local level, as well as in foreign countries and local jurisdictions, extensively regulate among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, sampling, import, export, safety, effectiveness, labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, record-keeping, approval, advertising, promotion, marketing, post-approval monitoring and post-approval reporting of drugs. We, along with our vendors, contract research organizations, or CROs, and contract manufacturers, will be required to navigate the various preclinical, clinical, manufacturing and commercial approval requirements of the governing regulatory agencies of the countries in which we wish to conduct studies or seek approval of our product candidates. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals of drugs and ensuring subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

In the U.S., the FDA regulates drug products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FD&C Act, as amended, its implementing regulations and other laws. If we fail to comply with applicable FDA or other requirements at any time with respect to product development, clinical testing, approval or any other legal requirements relating to product manufacture, processing, handling, storage, quality control, safety, marketing, advertising, promotion, packaging, labeling, export, import, distribution, or sale, we may become subject to

administrative or judicial sanctions or other legal consequences. These sanctions or consequences could include, among other things, the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, issuance of clinical holds for ongoing studies, withdrawal of approvals, warning or untitled letters, product withdrawals or recalls, product seizures, relabeling or repackaging, total or partial suspensions of manufacturing or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties or criminal prosecution.

The process required by the FDA before a drug may be marketed in the U.S. generally involves the following:

Preclinical studies and clinical trials for drugs

Before testing any drug in humans, the product candidate must undergo rigorous preclinical testing. Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluations of drug chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess safety and in some cases to establish the rationale for therapeutic use. The conduct of preclinical studies is subject to federal and state regulations and requirements, including GLP requirements for safety/toxicology studies. The results of the preclinical studies, together with manufacturing information and analytical data must be submitted to the FDA as part of an IND. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational product to humans and must become effective before clinical trials may begin. Some long-term preclinical testing may continue after the IND is submitted. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, raises concerns or questions about the conduct of the clinical trial, including concerns that human research patients will be exposed to unreasonable health risks, and imposes a clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. Submission of an IND may result in the FDA not allowing clinical trials to commence or not allowing clinical trials to commence on the terms originally specified in the IND.

The clinical stage of development involves the administration of the product candidate to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control, in accordance with GCP requirements, which include the requirements that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria and the parameters and criteria to be used in monitoring safety and evaluating effectiveness. Each protocol, and any subsequent amendments to the protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Furthermore, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB for each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted to ensure that the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable related to the anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative, and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. The FDA, the IRB or the sponsor may suspend or discontinue a clinical trial at any

time on various grounds, including a finding that the patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk or that the trial is unlikely to meet its stated objectives. Some studies also include oversight by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical study sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board, which provides authorization for whether or not a study may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the study and may halt the clinical trial if it determines that there is an unacceptable safety risk for subjects or other grounds, such as no demonstration of efficacy. There also are requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trials to public registries. Information about applicable clinical trials, including clinical trial results, must be submitted within specific timeframes for publication on the www.clinicaltrials.gov website.

A sponsor who wishes to conduct a clinical trial outside of the U.S. may, but need not, obtain FDA authorization to conduct the clinical trial under an IND. If a foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor must submit data from the clinical trial to the FDA in support of an NDA. The FDA will accept a well-designed and well-conducted foreign clinical trial not conducted under an IND if the trial was conducted in accordance with GCP requirements, and the FDA is able to validate the data through an onsite inspection if deemed necessary.

Clinical trials to evaluate therapeutic indications to support NDAs for marketing approval are typically conducted in three sequential phases, which may overlap or be combined.

Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication and are commonly intended to generate additional safety data regarding use of the product in a clinical setting. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of approval of an NDA.

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials, among other information, must be submitted at least annually to the FDA. Written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators fifteen days after the trial sponsor determines the information qualifies for reporting for serious and unexpected suspected adverse events, findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human volunteers and any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The sponsor must also notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction as soon as possible but in no case later than seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the product candidate and finalize a process for manufacturing the drug product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and manufacturers must develop, among other things, methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final drug product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

U.S. marketing approval for drugs

Assuming successful completion of the required clinical testing, the results of the preclinical studies and clinical trials, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacture, controls and proposed labeling, among other things are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. An NDA must contain proof of the drug’s safety and efficacy in order to be approved. The marketing application may include both negative and ambiguous results of preclinical studies and clinical trials, as well as positive findings. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and efficacy of a product’s use or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and efficacy of the investigational product to the satisfaction of the FDA. FDA approval of an NDA must be obtained before a drug may be marketed in the U.S.

The FDA reviews all submitted NDAs before it accepts them for filing and may request additional information rather than accepting the NDA for filing. The FDA must make a decision on accepting an NDA for filing within 60 days of receipt, and such decision could include a refusal to file by the FDA. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the NDA. The FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether the drug is safe and effective and whether the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packaged or held meets standards designed to assure the product’s continued safety, quality and purity. Under the goals and polices agreed to by the FDA under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, the FDA targets ten months, from the filing date, in which to complete its initial review of a new molecular entity NDA and respond to the applicant, and six months from the filing date of a new molecular entity NDA for priority review. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard or priority NDAs, and the review process is often extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification.

Further, under PDUFA, as amended, each NDA must be accompanied by a user fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on NDAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication.

The FDA also may require submission of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, program to ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh its risks. The REMS program could include medication guides, physician communication plans, assessment plans and/or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries or other risk-minimization tools.

The FDA may refer an application for a novel drug to an advisory committee. An advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, which reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA may inspect one or more clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCP and other requirements and the integrity of the clinical data submitted to the FDA.

After evaluating the NDA and all related information, including the advisory committee recommendation, if any, and inspection reports regarding the manufacturing facilities and clinical trial sites, the FDA may issue an approval letter, or, in some cases, a complete response letter. A complete response letter generally contains a statement of specific conditions that must be met in order to secure final approval of the NDA and may require additional clinical or preclinical testing in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. Even with submission of this additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. If and when those conditions have been met to the FDA’s satisfaction, the FDA will typically issue an approval letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications.

Even if the FDA approves a product, depending on the specific risk(s) to be addressed it may limit the approved indications for use of the product, require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, require that post-approval studies, including Phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further

assess a drug’s safety after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization or impose other conditions, including distribution and use restrictions or other risk management mechanisms under a REMS, which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-marketing studies or surveillance programs. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

Orphan drug designation and exclusivity

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the U.S., or if it affects 200,000 or more individuals in the U.S., there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making the product available in the U.S. for the disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product. Orphan designation must be requested before submitting an NDA. After the FDA grants orphan designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process, though companies developing orphan products are eligible for certain incentives, including tax credits for qualified clinical testing and waiver of application fees.

If a product that has orphan designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to a seven-year period of marketing exclusivity during which the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same therapeutic agent for the same indication, except in limited circumstances, such as a subsequent product’s showing of clinical superiority over the product with orphan exclusivity or where the original applicant cannot produce sufficient quantities of product. Competitors, however, may receive approval of different therapeutic agents for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity or obtain approval for the same therapeutic agent but for a different indication than that for which the orphan product has exclusivity. Orphan product exclusivity could also block the approval of one of our products for seven years if a competitor obtains approval for the same therapeutic agent for the same indication before we do, unless we are able to demonstrate that our product is clinically superior. If an orphan designated product receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what is designated, it may not be entitled to orphan exclusivity. Further, orphan drug exclusive marketing rights in the U.S. may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or the manufacturer of the approved product is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition.

Expedited development and review programs for drugs

The FDA maintains several programs intended to facilitate and expedite development and review of new drugs to address unmet medical needs in the treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions. These programs include Fast Track Designation, Breakthrough Therapy Designation, Priority Review and Accelerated Approval, and the purpose of these programs is to either expedite the development or review of important new drugs to get them to patients earlier than under standard FDA development and review procedures.

A new drug is eligible for Fast Track Designation if it is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for such disease or condition. Fast Track Designation provides increased opportunities for sponsor interactions with the FDA during preclinical and clinical development, in addition to the potential for rolling review once a marketing application is filed, meaning that the agency may review portions of the marketing application before the sponsor submits the complete application, as well as Priority Review, discussed below.

In addition, a new drug may be eligible for Breakthrough Therapy Designation if it is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. Breakthrough Therapy Designation provides all the features of Fast Track Designation in addition to intensive guidance on an efficient drug development program beginning as early as Phase 1, and FDA organizational commitment to expedited development, including involvement of senior managers and experienced review staff in a cross-disciplinary review, where appropriate.

Any product submitted to the FDA for approval, including a product with Fast Track or Breakthrough Therapy Designation, may also be eligible for additional FDA programs intended to expedite the review and approval process including Priority Review designation and Accelerated Approval. A product is eligible for Priority Review if

it has the potential to provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a serious disease or condition. Under priority review, the FDA targets reviewing an application in six months after filing compared to ten months after filing for a standard review.

Additionally, products are eligible for Accelerated Approval if they can be shown to have an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or an effect on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality which is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. Accelerated Approval is usually contingent on a sponsor’s agreement to conduct additional post-approval studies to verify and describe the product’s clinical benefit and, under the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022, or FDORA, the FDA is now permitted to require, as appropriate, that such trials be underway prior to approval or within a specific time period after the date of approval for a product granted Accelerated Approval. Under FDORA, the FDA has increased authority for expedited procedures to withdraw approval of a drug or indication approved under Accelerated Approval if, for example, the confirmatory trial fails to verify the predicted clinical benefit of the product. In addition, for products being considered for accelerated approval, the FDA generally requires, unless otherwise informed by the agency, that all advertising and promotional materials that are intended for dissemination or publication within 120 days following marketing approval be submitted to the agency for review during the pre-approval review period, and that after 120 days following marketing approval, all advertising and promotional materials must be submitted at least 30 days prior to the intended time of initial dissemination or publication.

Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or the time period for FDA review or approval may not be shortened. Furthermore, Fast Track Designation, Breakthrough Therapy Designation, Priority Review and Accelerated Approval do not change the scientific or medical standards for approval or the quality of evidence necessary to support approval but may expedite the development or review process.

Pediatric information and pediatric exclusivity

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, as amended, certain NDAs and certain supplements to an NDA must contain data to assess the safety and efficacy of the drug for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of pediatric data or full or partial waivers. The FD&C Act requires that a sponsor who is planning to submit a marketing application for a drug that includes a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan, or PSP, within 60 days of an end-of-Phase 2 meeting or, if there is no such meeting, as early as practicable before the initiation of the Phase 3 or Phase 2/3 trial. The FDA and the sponsor must reach an agreement on the PSP. A sponsor can submit amendments to an agreed-upon initial PSP at any time if changes to the pediatric plan need to be considered based on data collected from preclinical studies, early phase clinical trials and/or other clinical development programs.

A drug can also obtain pediatric market exclusivity in the U.S. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods and patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protection or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric trial or of multiple pediatric trials in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such trials, provided that at the time pediatric exclusivity is granted there is not less than nine months of term remaining.

U.S. post-approval requirements for drugs

Drugs manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to record-keeping, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, reporting of adverse experiences with the product, complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include restrictions on promoting products for unapproved uses or patient populations (known as “off-label use”) and limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities. Although physicians may prescribe legally available products for off-label uses, manufacturers and individuals working on behalf of manufacturers may not market or promote such uses. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability, including investigation by federal and state authorities. Prescription drug promotional materials must be submitted to the FDA in conjunction with their first use or first publication. Further, if there are any modifications to the drug, including changes in indications, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new NDA or NDA supplement, which may require the development of additional data or preclinical

studies and clinical trials. The FDA may impose a number of post-approval requirements as a condition of approval of an NDA. For example, the FDA may require post-market testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization.

In addition, drug manufacturers and their subcontractors involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs, and those supplying products, ingredients, and components of them, are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with ongoing regulatory requirements, including cGMP, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon us and our contract manufacturers. Manufacturers and other parties involved in the drug supply chain for prescription drug products must also comply with product tracking and tracing requirements and for notifying the FDA of counterfeit, diverted, stolen and intentionally adulterated products or products that are otherwise unfit for distribution in the United States. Failure to comply with statutory and regulatory requirements can subject a manufacturer to possible legal or regulatory action, such as warning letters, suspension of manufacturing, product seizures, injunctions, civil penalties or criminal prosecution. There is also a continuing, annual prescription drug product program user fee.

Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information, requirements for post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks, or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

Marketing exclusivity

Market exclusivity provisions under the FD&C Act can delay the submission or the approval of certain marketing applications. The FD&C Act provides a five-year period of non-patent exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to obtain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the action of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not approve or even accept for review an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, or an NDA submitted under Section 505(b)(2), or 505(b)(2) NDA, submitted by another company for another drug based on the same active moiety, regardless of whether the drug is intended for the same indication as the original innovative drug or for another indication. However, such an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement to one of the patents listed with the FDA by the innovator NDA holder.

The FD&C Act alternatively provides three years of marketing exclusivity for an NDA, or supplement to an existing NDA, if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, for example new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the modification for which the drug received approval on the basis of the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs or 505(b)(2) NDAs for drugs containing the active agent for the original indication or condition of use. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA. However, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to any preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

Other regulatory matters

Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities of product candidates following product approval, where applicable, or commercialization are also subject to regulation by numerous regulatory authorities in the U.S. in addition to the FDA, which may include the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, other divisions of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and state and local governments and governmental agencies.

Current and future healthcare reform legislation

In the United States and in some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and likely will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes intended to broaden access to healthcare, improve the quality of healthcare, and contain or lower the cost of healthcare. For example, in the United States, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or ACA, among other things, subjected products to potential competition by lower-cost products, expanded the types of entities eligible for the 340B drug discount program, increased rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extended the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, established annual fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs, and created a Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program for certain Medicare Part D beneficiaries, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 50% (increased effective January 2019 to 70%) point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D.

There have been executive, judicial and congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA Act as well as efforts to repeal or replace certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, for example, 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, President Biden has issued multiple executive orders that have sought to reduce prescription drug costs. Although a number of these and other proposed measures may require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, and the Biden administration may reverse or otherwise change these measures, both the Biden administration and Congress have indicated that they will continue to seek new legislative measures to control drug costs.

Other federal health reform measures have been proposed and adopted in the U.S. since the ACA was enacted. The Budget Control Act of 2011, for example, included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year that will remain in effect through 2031. In addition, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

Furthermore, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several congressional inquiries and proposed legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient assistance programs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. At the federal level, the previous administration used several means to propose or implement drug pricing reform, including through federal budget proposals, executive orders and policy initiatives. On July 9, 2021, for example, President Biden issued an executive order directing the FDA to, among other things, continue to clarify and improve the approval framework for generic drugs and identify and address any efforts to impede generic drug competition.

In addition, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or the IRA, includes several provisions that could impact our business to varying degrees. The IRA, which among other things, allows for Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to negotiate prices for certain single-source drugs and biologics reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Part D, beginning with select high-cost drugs in 2026. The legislation subjects drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax for offering a price that is not equal to or less than the price negotiated under the law or for taking price increases that exceed inflation. The legislation also requires manufacturers to pay rebates for drugs in Medicare Part D whose price increases exceed inflation. Further, the legislation caps Medicare beneficiaries’ annual out-of-pocket drug expenses at $2,000. The effect of IRA on our business and the healthcare industry in general is not yet known.

We cannot predict the initiatives that may be adopted in the future. The continuing efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payors of healthcare services to contain or reduce costs of healthcare and/or impose price controls may adversely affect:

Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors, which may adversely affect our future profitability.

Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. 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. It is difficult to predict the future legislative landscape in healthcare and the effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. However, we expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future.

Third-party payor coverage and reimbursement

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any products for which we may obtain regulatory approval. In the U.S. and markets in other countries, sales of any products for which we may receive regulatory marketing approval for commercial sale will depend, in part, on the availability of coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors. Third-party payors include government healthcare programs (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid), managed care providers, private health insurers, health maintenance organizations and other organizations. These third-party payors decide which medications they will pay for and will establish reimbursement levels. The availability of coverage and extent of reimbursement by governmental and other third-party payors is essential for most patients to be able to afford treatments such as targeted protein degradation therapies.

In the United States, no uniform policy exists for coverage and reimbursement for products among third-party payors. Therefore, decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided can differ significantly from payor to payor. Third-party payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates, but also have their own methods and approval process apart from Medicare determinations. Factors payors consider in determining reimbursement are based on whether the product is:

One third-party payor’s decision to cover a particular product or service does not ensure that other payors will also provide coverage for the medical product or service. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list or formulary, which may not include all FDA-approved products for a particular indication. Also, third-party payors may refuse to include a particular branded product on their formularies or otherwise restrict patient access to a branded drug when a less costly generic equivalent or other alternative is available. Our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from third-party payors.

Moreover, the process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the reimbursement rate a payor will pay for the product. A payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price and examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy. In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, we may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of our products, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or comparable regulatory approvals. Additionally, we may also need to provide discounts to purchasers, private health plans or government healthcare programs. Despite our best efforts, our product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective. If third-party payors do not consider a product to be cost-effective compared to other available therapies, they may not cover an approved product as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our products at a profit. A decision by a third-party payor not to cover a product could reduce physician utilization once the product is approved and have a material adverse effect on sales, our operations and financial condition.

Finally, in some foreign countries, the proposed pricing for a product candidate must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing product pricing vary widely from country to country. For example, in the European Union, or EU, pricing and reimbursement of pharmaceutical products are regulated at a national level under the individual EU Member States’ social security systems. Some foreign countries provide options to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and can control the prices of medicinal products for human use. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval, some of these countries may require the completion of clinical trials that compare the cost effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies. A country may approve a specific price for the medicinal product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our product candidates. Even if approved for reimbursement, historically, product candidates launched in some foreign countries, such as some countries in the EU, do not follow price structures of the U.S. and prices generally tend to be significantly lower.

Other healthcare laws and regulations

Healthcare providers, physicians, and third-party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any products for which we obtain marketing approval. Our business operations and any current or future arrangements with third-party payors may expose us to broadly applicable federal and state fraud and abuse laws, as well as other healthcare laws and regulations. These laws may impact, among other things, our proposed sales, marketing, and distribution strategies. In the U.S., these laws include, among others:

Privacy and data protection laws and regulations

We may be subject to Swiss, European, US federal, state, and foreign data protection laws and regulations (i.e., laws and regulations that address privacy and data security). In the European Union, we may be subject to additional privacy restrictions. The collection and use of personal data including health information in the European Union is governed by the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR as well as national data protection laws. The GDPR imposes a broad range of strict requirements on companies subject to the GDPR, such as requirements relating to ensuring a legal basis or condition applies to the processing of personal data, transferring such information outside the European Economic Area, or EEA, including to the U.S. (see below), expanded disclosures to individuals regarding the processing of their personal data, implementing safeguards to keep personal data secure, having data processing agreements with third parties who process personal data, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, responding to individuals’ requests to exercise their rights in respect of their personal data, if required obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, reporting security and privacy breaches involving personal data to the competent national data protection authority and affected individuals, appointing data protection officers, conducting data protection impact assessments, and record-keeping. The GDPR substantially increases the penalties to which we could be subject in the event of any non-compliance, including fines of up to €20,000,000 or 4% of total annual global revenue, whichever is greater. The GDPR increases the responsibility and liability of pharmaceutical companies in relation to processing personal data, and companies may be required to put in place additional mechanisms to ensure compliance with the new EU data protection rules. The GDPR introduced new data protection requirements in the EU and substantial fines for breaches of the data protection rules. The GDPR may impose additional responsibility and liability in relation to personal data that we process and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms ensuring compliance with the new data protection rules. This may be onerous and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In addition, the United Kingdom (UK) incorporated the GDPR into UK law (referred to as the 'UK GDPR'), following its exit from the EU. The UK GDPR and the UK Data Protection Act 2018 set out the UK’s data protection regime, which is independent from but aligned to the EU’s data protection regime. Non-compliance with the UK GDPR may result in monetary penalties of up to £17.5 million or 4% of worldwide revenue, whichever is higher. Although the UK is regarded as a third country under the EU’s GDPR, the European Commission or EC has now issued a decision recognizing the UK as providing adequate protection under the EU GDPR and, therefore, transfers of personal data originating in the EU to the UK remain unrestricted. Like the EU GDPR, the UK GDPR restricts personal data transfers outside the UK to countries not regarded by the UK as providing adequate protection. The UK government has confirmed that personal data transfers from the UK to the EEA remain free flowing. The UK has announced plans to reform the country’s data protection legal framework in its Data Reform Bill, which will introduce changes to the UK GDPR. Compliance with the EU GDPR and UK GDPR is a rigorous and time-intensive process that may increase our cost of doing business or require us to change our business practices, and despite those efforts, there is a risk that we may be subject to fines and penalties, litigation, and reputational harm in connection with our European or UK activities.

Currently, the most impactful point of divergence relates to transfer mechanisms (i.e., the ability for EU/UK companies to transfer personal information to third countries, including the United States), because it requires us to implement a variety of different contractual clauses approved by EU or UK regulators. The European Commission has issued standard contractual clauses for data transfers from controllers or processors in the EU (or otherwise subject to the GDPR) to controllers or processors established outside the EU. The new standard contractual clauses require exporters to assess the risk of a data transfer on a case-by-case basis, including an analysis of the laws in the destination country. The UK is not subject to the European Commission’s new standard

contractual clauses but has published a UK-specific transfer mechanism, which enables transfers from the UK. The UK-specific mechanism, the “International Data Transfer Agreement”, requires a similar risk assessment of the transfer as the standard contractual clauses. Further, the EU and United States have adopted its adequacy decision for the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework ("Framework"), which entered into force on July 11, 2023. This Framework provides that the protection of personal data transferred between the EU and the United States is comparable to that offered in the EU. This provides a further avenue to ensuring transfers to the United States are carried out in line with GDPR. There has been an extension to the Framework to cover UK transfers to the United States. The Framework could be challenged like its predecessor frameworks. This complexity and the additional contractual burden increases our overall risk exposure. There may be further divergence in the future, including with regard to administrative burdens.

In Switzerland, we are also subject to comprehensive data protection requirements including the Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection, or the DPA, which imposes stringent rules on the processing of personal data including health related information.

In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including federal health information privacy laws, state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws (e.g., Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act), that govern the collection, use, disclosure and protection of health-related and other personal information could apply to our operations or the operations of our collaborators. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) is a comprehensive law that creates individual privacy rights and protections for California consumers, places increased privacy and security obligations on entities handling personal data of consumers or households, and provides for civil penalties for violations and a private right of action for data breaches. The CCPA requires covered companies to provide certain disclosures to consumers about its data collection, use and sharing practices, and to provide affected California residents with ways to opt-out of certain sales or transfers of personal information.

Further, as of January 1, 2023, the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), amended the CCPA and created additional obligations with respect to processing and storing personal information and sensitive personal information. While the CCPA contains an exception for activities that are subject to HIPAA, we cannot yet determine the impact the CCPA and other such future laws, regulations and standards may have on our business. Similar consumer privacy laws have passed or come into force in numerous U.S. states. Like the CCPA, these laws grant consumers rights in relation to their personal information and impose new obligations on regulated businesses, including, in some instances, broader data security requirements. In addition, federal and state legislators and regulators have signaled their intention to further regulate health and other sensitive information, and new and strengthened requirements relating to this information could impact our business. At the state level, some states have passed or proposed laws to specifically regulate health information. For example, Washington’s My Health My Data Act, which comes into force in March 2024, requires regulated entities to obtain consent to collect health information, grants consumers certain rights, including to request deletion, and provides for robust enforcement mechanisms, including enforcement by the Washington state attorney-general and a private right of action for consumer claims. At the federal level, the FTC has used its authority over “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” to impose stringent requirements on the collection and disclosure of sensitive categories of personal information, including health information. Moreover, the FTC’s expanded interpretation of a “breach” under its Health Breach Notification Rule could impose new disclosure obligations that would apply in the event of a qualifying breach.

The uncertainty surrounding the implementation of recent and emerging state privacy and other similar laws, regulations and standards that may be adopted in other jurisdictions exemplifies the vulnerability of our business to the evolving regulatory environment related to personal data and protected health information. Compliance with U.S. and international data protection laws and regulations could require us to take on more onerous obligations in our contracts, restrict our ability to collect, use and disclose data, or in some cases, impact our ability to operate in certain jurisdictions. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations could result in government enforcement actions (which could include civil, criminal and administrative penalties), private litigation, and/or adverse publicity and could negatively affect our operating results and business. Moreover, clinical trial subjects, employees and other individuals about whom we or our potential collaborators obtain personal information, as well as the providers who share this information with us, may limit our ability to collect, use and disclose the information. Claims that we have violated individuals’ privacy rights, failed to comply with data protection laws, or breached our contractual obligations, even if we are not found liable, could be expensive and time-consuming to defend and could result in adverse publicity that could harm our business.

Many jurisdictions outside of Europe where we do business directly or through master resellers today and may seek to expand our business in the future, are also considering and/or have enacted comprehensive data

protection legislation. We also continue to see jurisdictions imposing data localization laws. These and similar regulations may interfere with our intended business activities, inhibit our ability to expand into those markets, require modifications to our products or services or prohibit us from continuing to offer services in those markets without significant additional costs.

Compliance with other federal and state laws or requirements; changing legal requirements

If any products that we may develop are made available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule of the General Services Administration, additional laws and requirements apply. Products must meet applicable child-resistant packaging requirements under the U.S. Poison Prevention Packaging Act. Manufacturing, labeling, packaging, distribution, sales, promotion and other activities also are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws, among other requirements to we may be subject.

The distribution of pharmaceutical products is subject to additional requirements and regulations, including extensive record-keeping, licensing, storage and security requirements intended to prevent the unauthorized sale of pharmaceutical products.

The failure to comply with any of these laws or regulatory requirements subjects firms to possible legal or regulatory action. Depending on the circumstances, failure to meet applicable regulatory requirements can result in criminal prosecution, fines or other penalties, injunctions, exclusion from federal healthcare programs, requests for recall, seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, denial or withdrawal of product approvals, relabeling or repackaging, or refusal to allow a firm to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts. Any claim or action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. Prohibitions or restrictions on marketing, sales or withdrawal of future products marketed by us could materially affect our business in an adverse way.

Changes in regulations, statutes or the interpretation of existing regulations could impact our business in the future by requiring, for example: (i) changes to our manufacturing arrangements; (ii) additions or modifications to product labeling or packaging; (iii) the recall or discontinuation of our products; or (iv) additional record-keeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the operation of our business.

Other U.S. environmental, health and safety laws and regulations

We may be subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. From time to time and in the future, our operations may involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials, and may also produce hazardous waste products. Even if we contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and waste products, we cannot completely eliminate the risk of contamination or injury resulting from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from the use or disposal of our hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties for failure to comply with such laws and regulations.

We maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees, but this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. However, we do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us.

In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. Current or future environmental laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts. In addition, failure to comply with these laws and regulations may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

Government regulation of drugs outside of the United States

To market any product outside of the U.S., we would need to comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries regarding safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization or identification of an alternate regulatory pathway, manufacturing, commercial sales and distribution of our products.

Whether or not we obtain FDA approval of a product, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign countries prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. If we fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other

things, fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.

Non-clinical studies and clinical trials

Similarly to the U.S., the various phases of non-clinical and clinical research in the European Union, or EU, are subject to significant regulatory controls.

Non-clinical studies are performed to demonstrate the safety and non-toxicity of new chemical (or biological) substances. Non-clinical studies must be conducted in compliance with the principles of good laboratory practice, or GLP, as set forth in the Directive 2004/10/EC. In particular, non-clinical studies, both in vitro and in vivo, must be planned, performed, monitored, recorded, reported and archived in accordance with the GLP principles, which define a set of rules and criteria for a quality system for the organizational process and the conditions for non-clinical studies. These GLP standards reflect the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development requirements.

In April 2014, the EU adopted the Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014, or the Clinical Trials Regulation, which replaced the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC on January 31, 2022. The Clinical Trials Regulation, which is directly applicable in all EU Member States (meaning no national implementing legislation in each EU Member State is required), aims to simplify and streamline the approval of clinical trials in the EU, for example by providing for a streamlined application procedure via a single entry point and simplifying reporting procedures for clinical trial sponsors.

Marketing authorizations

In the EU, medicinal products can only be placed on the market after obtaining a marketing authorization, or MA. The process for doing this depends, among other things, on the nature of the medicinal product, but the two routes are either the centralized authorization procedure or one of the national authorization procedures.

MAs have an initial duration of five years. After these five years, the authorization may be renewed for an unlimited period on the basis of a reevaluation of the risk-benefit balance.

Now that the UK (which comprises Great Britain and Northern Ireland) has left the EU, Great Britain is no longer covered by centralized MAs (under the Northern Ireland Protocol, centralized MAs currently continue to be recognized in Northern Ireland). On January 1, 2024, a new international recognition framework was put in place under which the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, the UK medicines regulator, will have regard to decisions on the approval of an MA made by the EMA and certain other regulators when considering whether to grant a UK MA. The MHRA also has the power to have regard to MAs approved in EU Member States through decentralized or mutual recognition procedures with a view to more quickly granting an MA in the UK or Great Britain.

Data and market exclusivity

In the EU, upon receiving an MA, innovative medicinal products, sometimes referred to as new chemical entities (i.e., reference products) generally qualify for eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity. If granted, the data exclusivity period prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from relying on the non-clinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar MA in the EU during a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EU. During the additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic/biosimilar MAA can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic or biosimilar product can be marketed in the EU until the expiration of the market exclusivity period. The overall ten-year period can be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the MA holder obtains an MA for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their MA, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. However, there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EMA or Member State regulatory authorities to be a new chemical entity, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity. Even if a product gains the prescribed period of data exclusivity, another company may market another version of the product if such company obtained a marketing authorization based on an application with a complete and independent data package of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical tests and clinical trials.

Orphan medicinal products

The criteria for designating an “orphan medicinal product” in the EU are similar in principle to those in the U.S. In the EU, a medicinal product may be designated as orphan if (i) it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition; (ii) either (a) such condition affects no more than five in 10,000 persons in the EU when the application is made, or (b) it is unlikely that the product, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would generate sufficient return in the EU to justify the investment in its development; and (iii) there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of such condition authorized for marketing in the EU, or if such a method exists, the product will be of a significant benefit to those affected by that condition. The application for orphan designation must be submitted before the MAA. Orphan medicinal products are eligible for financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and are, upon grant of an MA, entitled to ten years of market exclusivity for the approved therapeutic indication. During this ten-year orphan market exclusivity period, no MAA shall be accepted in the EU for the same indication in respect of a similar medicinal product to the authorized orphan product. A “similar medicinal product” is defined as a medicinal product containing a similar active substance or substances as contained in an authorized orphan medicinal product, and which is intended for the same therapeutic indication. An orphan medicinal product can also obtain an additional two years of market exclusivity in the EU for pediatric studies. No extension to any supplementary

protection certificate can be granted on the basis of pediatric studies for orphan indications. Orphan designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

The ten-year market exclusivity may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan designation, for example, if the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. Additionally, an MA may be granted to a similar medicinal product for the same indication as an authorized orphan product at any time if (i) it is established that a similar medicinal product is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior than the authorized product; (ii) the MA holder of the authorized product consents to the second medicinal product authorization; or (iii) the MA holder of the authorized product cannot supply enough orphan medicinal product.

Pediatric development

In the EU, MAAs for new medicinal products must include the results of trials conducted in the pediatric population, in compliance with a pediatric investigation plan, or PIP, agreed with the EMA’s Pediatric Committee, or PDCO, unless the EMA has granted a product-specific waiver, a class waiver, or a deferral for one or more of the measures included in the PIP. This requirement also applies when a company wants to add a new indication, pharmaceutical form or route of administration for a medicine that is already authorized. The PIP sets out the timing and measures proposed to generate data to support a pediatric indication of the product for which an MA is being sought. The PDCO can grant a deferral of the obligation to implement some or all of the measures of the PIP until there are sufficient data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the product in adults. Further, the obligation to provide pediatric clinical trial data can be waived by the PDCO when these data are not needed or appropriate because the product is likely to be ineffective or unsafe in children, the disease or condition for which the product is intended occurs only in adult populations, or when the product does not represent a significant therapeutic benefit over existing treatments for pediatric patients. Products that are granted an MA with the results of the pediatric clinical trials conducted in accordance with the PIP are eligible for a six month extension of the protection under an SPC (provided an application for such extension is made at the same time as filing the SPC application for the product, or at any point up to 2 years before the SPC expires) even where the trial results are negative. This pediatric reward is subject to specific conditions and is not automatically available when data in compliance with the PIP are developed and submitted.

Post-approval requirements

Similar to the United States, both MA holders and manufacturers of medicinal products are subject to comprehensive regulatory oversight by the EMA, the European Commission and/or the competent regulatory authorities of the Member States. The holder of an MA must establish and maintain a pharmacovigilance system and appoint an individual qualified person for pharmacovigilance who is responsible for oversight of that system. Key obligations include expedited reporting of suspected serious adverse reactions and submission of periodic safety update reports, or PSURs. All new MAAs must include a risk management plan, or RMP, describing the risk management system that the company will put in place and documenting measures to prevent or minimize the risks associated with the product. The regulatory authorities may also impose specific obligations as a condition of the MA. Such risk-minimization measures or post-authorization obligations may include additional safety monitoring, more frequent submission of PSURs, or the conduct of additional clinical trials or post-authorization safety studies.

The advertising and promotion of medicinal products is also subject to laws concerning promotion of medicinal products, interactions with physicians, misleading and comparative advertising and unfair commercial practices. All advertising and promotional activities for the product must be consistent with the approved summary of product characteristics, and therefore all off-label promotion is prohibited. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicines is also prohibited in the EU. Although general requirements for advertising and promotion of medicinal products are established under EU Directives, the details are governed by regulations in each Member State and can differ from one country to another.

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

The aforementioned EU rules are generally applicable in the European Economic Area, or EEA, which consists of the 27 EU Member States plus Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland. For other countries outside of the EU, such as countries in Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical studies, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, again, the clinical studies are conducted in accordance with GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.

Should we utilize third-party distributors, compliance with such foreign governmental regulations would generally be the responsibility of such distributors, who may be independent contractors over whom we have limited control.

Reform of the Regulatory Framework in the European Union

The European Commission introduced legislative proposals in April 2023 that, if implemented, will replace the current regulatory framework in the EU for all medicines (including those for rare diseases and for children). The European Commission has provided the legislative proposals to the European Parliament and the European Council for their review and approval. In October 2023, the European Parliament published draft reports proposing amendments to the legislative proposals, which will be debated by the European Parliament. Once the European Commission’s legislative proposals are approved (with or without amendment), they will be adopted into EU law.

Brexit and the regulatory framework in the United Kingdom

The UK formally left the EU on January 31, 2020, and the EU and the UK have concluded a trade and cooperation agreement, or TCA, which was provisionally applicable since January 1, 2021, and has been formally applicable since May 1, 2021. The TCA includes specific provisions concerning pharmaceuticals, which include the mutual recognition of GMP, inspections of manufacturing facilities for medicinal products and GMP documents issued, but does not provide for wholesale mutual recognition of UK and EU pharmaceutical regulations. At present, Great Britain has implemented EU legislation on the marketing, promotion and sale of medicinal products through the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (as amended) (under the Northern Ireland Protocol, the EU regulatory framework currently continues to apply in Northern Ireland). Except in respect of the new EU Clinical Trials Regulation, the regulatory regime in Great Britain therefore largely aligns in many ways with current EU medicines regulations, however it is possible that these regimes will diverge more significantly in future now that Great Britain’s regulatory system is independent from the EU and the TCA does not provide for mutual recognition of UK and EU pharmaceutical legislation. However, notwithstanding that there is no wholesale recognition of EU pharmaceutical legislation under the TCA, under a new international recognition framework mentioned above which was put in place by the MHRA on January 1, 2024, the MHRA may take into account decisions on the approval of MAs from the EMA (and certain other regulators) when considering an application for a UK MA.

On February 27, 2023, the UK government and the European Commission announced a political agreement in principle to replace the Northern Ireland Protocol with a new set of arrangements, known as the “Windsor Framework”. This new framework fundamentally changes the existing system under the Northern Ireland Protocol, including with respect to the regulation of medicinal products in the UK. In particular, the MHRA will be responsible for approving all medicinal products destined for the UK market (i.e., Great Britain and Northern Ireland), and the EMA will no longer have any role in approving medicinal products destined for Northern Ireland. A single UK-wide MA will be granted by the MHRA for all medicinal products to be sold in the UK, enabling products to be sold in a single pack and under a single authorization throughout the UK. The Windsor Framework was approved by the EU-UK Joint Committee on March 24, 2023, so the UK government and the EU will enact legislative measures to bring it into law. On June 9, 2023, the MHRA announced that the medicines aspects of the Windsor Framework will apply from January 1, 2025.

Employees and human capital resources

As of December 31, 2023, we had 133 full-time employees, of which 66 have M.D. or Ph.D. degrees. Within our workforce, 105 employees are engaged in research and development and 28 are engaged in business development, finance, legal, and general management and administration. None of our employees are represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

Our human capital resources objectives include, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, retaining, incentivizing and integrating our existing and new employees, advisors and consultants. The principal purposes of our equity incentive plans are to attract, retain and reward personnel through the granting of equity-based compensation awards in order to increase shareholder value and the success of our company by motivating such individuals to perform to the best of their abilities and achieve our objectives.

Available Information

Investors and others should note that we announce material information to our investors using our investor relations website (https://ir.monterosatx.com/), SEC filings, press releases, public conference calls and webcasts. We use these channels as well as social media, including LinkedIn and our Twitter (@MonteRosaRx), to communicate with the public about our company, our business, our product candidates and other matters. It is possible that the information we post on social media could be deemed to be material information. Therefore, we encourage investors, the media, and others interested in our company to review the information we post on the social media channels listed on our investor relations website. Information that is contained in and can be accessed through our website or our social media posts are not incorporated into, and does not form a part of, this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

We file Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, proxy statements and other information with the SEC. Our filings with the SEC are available on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.

We make available, free of charge, in the Investor Relations section of our website, documents we file with or furnish to the SEC, including our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, including exhibits, proxy and information statements and amendments to those reports. We make this information available as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such materials with, or furnish such information to, the SEC. The other information found on our website is not part of this or any other report we file with, or furnish to, the SEC. Copies of such documents are available in print at no charge to any shareholder who makes a request. Such requests should be made to our corporate secretary at our corporate headquarters, 321 Harrison Avenue, Boston, MA 02118.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

Careful consideration should be given to the following risk factors, in addition to the other information set forth in this Annual Report and in other documents that we file with the SEC, in evaluating our business. Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. If any of the following risks and uncertainties actually occurs, our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. The risks described below are not intended to be exhaustive and are not the only risks that we face. New risk factors can emerge from time to time, and it is not possible to predict the impact that any factor or combination of factors may have on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. Certain statements in this Annual Report are forward-looking statements. Please also see the section entitled “Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements.”

Risks related to our financial position and capital needs

We are a biotechnology company with a limited operating history and have not generated any revenue to date from drug sales, and may never become profitable.

Biopharmaceutical drug development is a highly speculative undertaking and involves a substantial degree of risk. Since our formation as Monte Rosa Therapeutics AG in 2018, our operations have been limited primarily to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, researching and developing our Quantitative and Engineered Elimination of Neosubstrates drug discovery platform, or our QuEENTM platform, building our proprietary library of MGDs, developing our pipeline of product candidates, building our intellectual property portfolio, undertaking preclinical and IND-enabling studies of our product candidates, and conducting our first clinical trial for MRT-2359. We have never generated any revenue from drug sales. We have not obtained regulatory approvals for any of our current or future product candidates.

Typically, it takes many years to develop one new pharmaceutical drug from the time it is discovered to when it is available for treating patients. Consequently, any predictions we make about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history. In addition, as a business with a limited operating history, we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known and unknown factors, such as market volatility, public health crises or other geopolitical events. We will need to transition from a company focused on research and early-stage development to a company capable of supporting late-stage development and commercial activities. We may not be successful in such a transition.

We have incurred significant operating losses since our inception and anticipate that we will incur continued losses for the foreseeable future.

Since our inception, we have focused substantially all of our efforts and financial resources on developing our proprietary QuEENTM platform, our proprietary MGD library, and our initial pipeline of product candidates. To date, we have financed our operations primarily through the issuance and sale of convertible promissory notes and our convertible preferred stock to outside investors in private equity financings, our initial public offering, sales of our common stock, our recent registered direct offering, and our collaboration with Roche. From our inception through the date hereof, we raised an aggregate of $524.8 million of gross proceeds from such transactions. As of December 31, 2023, our cash, cash equivalents, restricted cash and marketable securities were $237.0 million. We have incurred net losses in each year since our inception, and we had an accumulated deficit of $365.9 million as of December 31, 2023. For the years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022, we reported net losses of $135.4 million and $108.5 million, respectively. Substantially all of our operating losses have resulted from costs incurred in connection with our research and initial pipeline programs and from general and administrative costs associated with our operations. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and increasing operating losses over the next several years and for the foreseeable future. Our prior losses, combined with expected future losses, have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ deficit and working capital. We expect our expenses to significantly increase in connection with our ongoing activities, as we:

In addition, if we obtain marketing approval for our current or future product candidates, we will incur significant expenses relating to our commercialization of such product candidates via our sales, marketing, product manufacturing and distribution efforts. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with developing pharmaceutical drugs, including in light of any potential regional or global economic slowdowns, we are unable to predict the extent of any future losses or when we will become profitable, if at all.

Even if we achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase our profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would depress the value of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, maintain our development efforts, obtain product approvals, diversify our offerings or continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company could also cause you to lose all or part of your investment.

We are very early in our development efforts. All but one of our programs are still in the preclinical stages of drug development. If we are unable to commercialize our product candidates or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

Our ability to become profitable depends upon our ability to generate revenue. To date we have not generated any revenue from our product candidates, and we do not expect to generate any revenue from the sale of drugs in the near future. We do not expect to generate revenue from product sales unless and until we complete the development of, obtain marketing approval for, and begin to sell, one or more of our product candidates. We are also unable to predict when, if ever, we will be able to generate revenue from such product candidates due to the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with drug development, including the uncertainty of:

We expect to incur significant sales and marketing costs as we prepare to commercialize our current or future product candidates. Even if we initiate and successfully complete pivotal or registration-enabling clinical trials of our current or future product candidates, and our current or future product candidates are approved for commercial sale, and despite expending these costs, our current or future product candidates may not be commercially successful. We may not achieve profitability soon after generating drug sales, if ever. If we are unable to generate revenue, we will not become profitable and may be unable to continue operations without continued funding.

As part of our ongoing business, we will need to raise substantial additional funding beyond our current capital. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on attractive terms, we would be forced to delay, scale back or discontinue some of our product candidate development programs or future commercialization efforts.

We are currently progressing our Phase 1/2 trial of MRT-2359, we are preparing to file an IND for MRT-6160, we are advancing multiple late stage preclinical programs, including MRT-8102, and multiple discovery programs through the preclinical stages of drug development across a number of potential indications, and we are continuously discovering additional targets as candidates for new discovery programs via our prolific QuEENTM MGD discovery engine. We expect our expenses to increase substantially in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we continue the research and development of, advance the preclinical and clinical activities of, and seek marketing approval for, our current or future product candidates. In addition, if we obtain marketing approval for any of our product candidates, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to product sales, marketing, manufacturing and distribution. Furthermore, we expect to continue to incur significant additional costs associated with operating as a public company. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations. However, changing circumstances may cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to spend more money than currently expected because of circumstances beyond our control. We cannot be certain that additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenue, we expect to finance our operations through a combination of public or private equity offerings, including use of our "at-the-market" program with Jefferies LLC, or Jefferies, debt financings, governmental funding, collaborations, such as our collaboration with Roche, strategic partnerships and alliances or marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements with third parties. If we are unable to raise capital or generate revenue when needed or on attractive terms, we would be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our discovery and preclinical development programs or any future commercialization efforts. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a common stockholder. Debt financing and preferred equity financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends.

Since our initial public offering, or IPO, we have raised additional capital through the issuance and sale of our common stock and warrants to purchase our common stock, including a registered direct offering in October 2023

which raised aggregate net proceeds of approximately $24.9 million after deducting offering expenses and in “at-the-market” offerings, pursuant to an Open Market Sale Agreement with Jefferies which provides for the offering, issuance and sale of up to an aggregate amount of $100.0 million of our common stock. We expect that our existing cash and cash equivalents and marketable securities, will be sufficient to fund our operations into the first half of 2026. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our capital resources sooner than we currently expect. This estimate also assumes that we do not obtain any additional funding through collaborations, such as our collaboration with Roche, or other strategic alliances. Our future capital requirements will depend on, and could increase significantly as a result of, many factors, including:

Identifying potential current or future product candidates and conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials is a time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete, and we may never generate the necessary data or results required to obtain marketing approval and achieve drug sales. In addition, our current or future product candidates, if approved, may not achieve commercial success. Our commercial revenues, if any, will be derived from sales of drugs that we do not expect to be commercially available for many years, if at all. Accordingly, we will need to continue to rely on additional funding to achieve our business objectives. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all.

Risks related to our business and industry

Risks related to drug development and regulatory approval

Our approach to the discovery and development of product candidates based on our QuEENTM platform is novel, which makes it difficult to predict the time, cost of development and likelihood of successfully developing any product candidates.

Our QuEENTM platform is a relatively new technology. Our future success depends on the successful development of this novel product candidate development approach. We have not yet succeeded and may not succeed in demonstrating the efficacy and safety of any of our product candidates in clinical trials or in obtaining marketing approval thereafter. In particular, our ability to successfully target therapeutically-relevant proteins using MGDs requires the successful development of MGDs developed via our QuEENTM platform. This is a complex process requiring a number of component parts or biological mechanisms to work in unison to achieve the desired effect. We cannot be certain that we will be able to discover MGDs by matching the right target and its degron with the ideal E3 ligase in a timely manner, or at all. We have only initiated clinical development of our lead product candidate, and there may be adverse effects from treatment with any of our current or future product candidates that we cannot predict at this time.

As a result of these factors, it is more difficult for us to predict the time and cost of product candidate development, and we cannot predict whether our approaches will result in the development and marketing approval of any product candidates. Any development problems we experience in the future related to our QuEENTM platform or any of our discovery programs may cause significant delays or unanticipated costs or may prevent the development of a commercially viable product. Any of these factors may prevent us from completing our preclinical studies and clinical trials, or any clinical trials that we may initiate in the future or commercializing any product candidates we may develop on a timely or profitable basis, if at all.

We may not be successful in our efforts to identify or discover additional product candidates or we may expend our limited resources to pursue a particular product candidate or indication and fail to capitalize on product candidates or indications that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

A key element of our strategy is to apply our QuEENTM platform and product pipeline to address a broad array of target proteins in various therapeutic areas. The discovery activities that we are conducting may not be successful in identifying product candidates that are useful in treating oncology, inflammatory, immunologic and other diseases, and neurodegenerative or other neurologic diseases. Our discovery programs may be unsuccessful in identifying potential product candidates, or our potential product candidates may be shown to have harmful side effects or may have other characteristics that may make the products unmarketable or unlikely to receive marketing approval.

Because we have limited financial and management resources, we focus on a limited number of discovery programs and product candidates at a time. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other current or future product candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable products. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate.

Our business is dependent on the success of our lead program, and any other product candidates that we advance into the clinic. We cannot be certain that we will be able to obtain regulatory approval for, or successfully commercialize, any of our current or future product candidates.

All of our pipeline programs other than MRT-2359 are currently in preclinical development. The preclinical studies and future clinical trials of our current or future product candidates are, and the manufacturing and marketing of our current or future product candidates will be, subject to extensive and rigorous review and regulation by numerous government authorities in the U.S. and in other countries where we intend to test or, if approved, market any of our current or future product candidates. Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of any of our current or future product candidates, we must demonstrate through preclinical studies and clinical trials that each product candidate is safe and effective for use in each target indication. Drug development is a long, expensive and uncertain process, and delay or failure can occur at any stage of any of our preclinical studies and clinical trials. This process can take many years and may include post-marketing studies and surveillance, which will require the expenditure of substantial resources beyond the proceeds we raised in our IPO. Of the large number of drugs in development in the U.S., only a small percentage will successfully complete the FDA regulatory approval process and will be commercialized, with similarly low rates of success for drugs in development in the European Union obtaining regulatory approval from the EMA. Accordingly, even if we are able to obtain the requisite financing to continue to fund our development and preclinical studies and clinical trials, we cannot assure you that any of our current or future product candidates will be successfully developed or commercialized.

We are not permitted to market our current or future product candidates in the U.S. until we receive approval of an NDA from the FDA, or in the EEA, until we receive approval of a marketing authorization application, or an MAA, from the EMA, or in any other foreign countries until we receive the requisite approval from such countries. Obtaining approval of an NDA or MAA is a complex, lengthy, expensive, and uncertain process, and the FDA or EMA may delay, limit or deny approval of any of our current or future product candidates for many reasons, including, among others:

Any of these factors, many of which are beyond our control, could jeopardize our ability to obtain regulatory approval for and successfully market our current or future product candidates. Any such setback in our pursuit of regulatory approval would have a material adverse effect on our business and prospects.

If we experience delays or difficulties in the initiation, enrollment and/or retention of patients in clinical trials, our regulatory submissions or receipt of necessary regulatory approvals could be delayed or prevented.

We may not be able to initiate our planned clinical trials or continue our ongoing trial on a timely basis or at all if we are unable to recruit and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials as required by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the U.S. Patient enrollment is a significant factor in the timing of clinical trials. Our ability to enroll eligible patients may be limited or may result in slower enrollment than we anticipate.

Moreover, some of our clinical trials will compete with other clinical trials that are in the same therapeutic areas as our current or future product candidates, and this competition reduces the number and types of patients available to us, as some patients who would otherwise be eligible for our clinical trials may instead enroll in clinical trials of our competitors’ current or future product candidates. 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. 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 for our ongoing clinical trial and any of our future clinical trials may be affected by other factors including:

These factors may make it difficult for us to enroll enough patients to complete our clinical trials in a timely and cost-effective manner. Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients for our clinical trials would result in significant delays or may require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether. Enrollment delays in our clinical trials may result in increased development costs for our product candidates and jeopardize our ability to obtain marketing approval for the sale of our product candidates. Furthermore, even if we are able to enroll a sufficient number of patients for our clinical trials, we may have difficulty maintaining participation in our clinical trials through the treatment and any follow-up periods.

The incidence and prevalence for target patient populations of our product candidates have not been established with precision. If the market opportunities for our product candidates are smaller than we estimate or if any approval that we obtain is based on a narrower definition of the patient population, our revenue and ability to achieve profitability will be adversely affected, possibly materially.

The precise incidence and prevalence for the indications being pursued by our current and future product candidates is currently unknown. Our projections of both the number of people who have these diseases, as well as the subset of people with these diseases who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates, are based on estimates. Our GSPT1 program developed a product candidate, MRT-2359, a GSPT1-targeted MGD, for the treatment of cancers dependent on or characterized by the expression of high levels of MYC family genes, our NEK7 program developed a product candidate, MRT-8102, a NEK-7-targeted MGD, for the treatment of IL-1ᵦ/NLRP3 driven inflammatory diseases, our CDK2 program will develop a product candidate for the treatment of cancers such as ovarian and breast cancers, our VAV1 program developed a product candidate MRT-6160, a VAV1-targeted MGD for the treatment of systemic and central nervous system autoimmune diseases, and will develop a product candidate for T and B cell malignancies. The total addressable market opportunity for product candidates from these discovery programs and future product candidates will ultimately depend upon, among other things, its proven safety and efficacy, the diagnosis criteria included in the final label for each, whether our product candidates are approved for sale for these indications, acceptance by the

medical community and patient access, product pricing and reimbursement. The number of patients for our product candidates in the United States and elsewhere may turn out to be lower than expected, patients may not be otherwise amenable to treatment with our products, or new patients may become increasingly difficult to identify or gain access to, all of which would adversely affect our results of operations and our business.

Preclinical and clinical drug development is a lengthy and expensive process, with an uncertain outcome. Our preclinical and clinical programs may experience delays or may never advance, which would adversely affect our ability to obtain regulatory approvals or commercialize our product candidates on a timely basis or at all, which could have an adverse effect on our business.

In order to obtain FDA approval to market a new small molecule product, we must demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates in humans to the satisfaction of the FDA. To meet these requirements, we will have to conduct adequate and well-controlled clinical trials. Clinical testing is expensive, time-consuming and subject to uncertainty. Before we can commence clinical trials for a product candidate, we must complete extensive preclinical studies that support our planned and future INDs in the United States. Other than MRT-2359, which is being evaluated in an ongoing clinical trial, MRT-6160, which we plan to submit an IND in Q2 2024 and to initiate a Phase 1 single ascending dose / multiple ascending dose study, and MRT-8102, which we plan to submit an IND in Q1 2025, we are currently selecting lead development candidates for preclinical development. We cannot be certain of the timely completion or outcome of our preclinical studies and cannot predict if the FDA will allow our proposed clinical programs to proceed or if the outcome of our preclinical studies will ultimately support further development of our programs. We cannot be sure that we will be able to submit INDs or similar applications with respect to our other product candidates on the timelines we expect, if at all, and we cannot be sure that submission of an IND or similar applications will result in the FDA or other regulatory authorities allowing clinical trials to begin.

Conducting preclinical testing and clinical trials represents a lengthy, time-consuming and expensive process. The length of time may vary substantially according to the type, complexity and novelty of the program, and often can be several years or more per program. Delays associated with programs for which we are directly conducting preclinical studies may cause us to incur additional operating expenses. The commencement and rate of completion of preclinical studies and clinical trials for a product candidate may be delayed by many factors, including, for example:

Further, conducting clinical trials in foreign countries, as we may do for our product candidates, presents additional risks that may delay completion of our clinical trials. These risks include the failure of enrolled patients in foreign countries to adhere to clinical protocol as a result of differences in healthcare services or cultural customs, managing additional administrative burdens associated with foreign regulatory schemes, as well as political and economic risks relevant to such foreign countries. Delays in the completion of any preclinical studies or clinical trials of our product candidates will increase our costs, slow down our product candidate development and approval process and delay or potentially jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate product revenue. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates. Any delays to our preclinical studies or clinical trials that occur as a result could shorten any period during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates and our competitors may be able to bring products to market before we do, and the commercial viability of our product candidates could be significantly reduced. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

The results of preclinical testing and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the results of later preclinical studies and clinical trials, and the results of our current and future clinical trials may not satisfy the requirements of the FDA or other comparable regulatory authorities. If we cannot replicate the positive results from our preclinical studies of our current or future product candidates in our current or future clinical trials, we may be unable to successfully develop, obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize our current or future product candidates.

We will be required to demonstrate with substantial evidence through well-controlled clinical trials that our product candidates are safe and effective before we can seek marketing approvals for their commercial sale. Positive results from our preclinical studies of our current or future product candidates, and any positive results we may obtain from our early clinical trials of our current or future product candidates, may not necessarily be predictive of the results from required subsequent preclinical studies and clinical trials. Similarly, even if we are able to complete our planned preclinical studies or any clinical trials of our current or future product candidates according

to our current development timeline, the positive results from such preclinical studies and clinical trials of our current or future product candidates may not be replicated in subsequent preclinical studies or clinical trial results.

Additionally, several of our past, planned and ongoing clinical trials utilize an “open-label” trial design. An “open-label” clinical trial is one where both the patient and investigator know whether the patient is receiving the investigational product candidate or either an existing approved drug or placebo. Most typically, open-label clinical trials test only the investigational product candidate and sometimes may do so at different dose levels. Open-label clinical trials are subject to various limitations that may exaggerate any therapeutic effect as patients in open-label clinical trials are aware when they are receiving treatment. Open-label clinical trials may be subject to a “patient bias” where patients perceive their symptoms to have improved merely due to their awareness of receiving an experimental treatment. In addition, open-label clinical trials may be subject to an “investigator bias” where those assessing and reviewing the physiological outcomes of the clinical trials are aware of which patients have received treatment and may interpret the information of the treated group more favorably given this knowledge. The results from an open-label trial may not be predictive of future clinical trial results with any of our product candidates for which we include an open-label clinical trial when studied in a controlled environment with a placebo or active control.

Many companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials after achieving positive results in early-stage development, and we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks. These setbacks have been caused by, among other things, preclinical findings made while clinical trials were underway or safety or efficacy observations made in preclinical studies and clinical trials, including previously unreported adverse events. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials nonetheless failed to obtain approval from the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority. If we fail to produce positive results in our planned preclinical studies or clinical trials of any of our current or future product candidates, the development timeline and regulatory approval and commercialization prospects for our current or future product candidates, and, correspondingly, our business and financial prospects, would be materially adversely affected. Thus, even if the results from our initial research and preclinical activities appear positive, we do not know whether subsequent clinical studies we may conduct will demonstrate adequate efficacy and safety to result in regulatory approval to market any product candidates.

Interim, top-line and preliminary data from our preclinical studies and clinical trials that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more data become available and are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data.

From time to time, we may publicly disclose interim, topline 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 interim, topline 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. For example, in October 2023 we announced interim data from the Phase 1 dose escalation part of our ongoing Phase 1/2 open-label, multicenter study of MRT-2359 in patients with MYC-driven solid tumors. While the interim clinical data from the study demonstrated favorable tolerability, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles in heavily pre-treated patients with lung cancers and high-grade neuroendocrine cancer, we cannot be certain that the final data will demonstrate the same results, or that we will be able to draw the same conclusions from the final data. Interim, topline and preliminary data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. As a result, such data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Adverse differences between preliminary, interim or topline data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects.

Further, others, including regulatory agencies, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the value of the particular program, the approvability or commercialization of the particular product candidate 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 the material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure, and any information we determine not to disclose may ultimately be deemed significant with respect to future decisions, conclusions, views, activities or otherwise regarding a particular product, product candidate or our business. If the interim, topline 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.

If we are not able to obtain, or if there are delays in obtaining, required regulatory approvals for our current or future product candidates, we will not be able to commercialize, or will be delayed in commercializing, our current or future product candidates, and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.

Our current or future product candidates and the activities associated with their development and commercialization, including their design, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale, distribution, import and export, are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory agencies in the U.S. and by comparable authorities in other countries. Before we can commercialize any of our current or future product candidates, we must obtain marketing approval from the regulatory authorities in the relevant jurisdictions. We have not received approval to market any of our current or future product candidates from regulatory authorities in any jurisdiction, and it is possible that none of our current product candidates, nor any product candidates we may seek to develop in the future, will ever obtain regulatory approval. Securing regulatory approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to the various regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the product candidate’s safety and efficacy. Securing regulatory approval also requires the submission of information about the drug manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the relevant regulatory authority. Our current or future 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.

In addition, even if we were to obtain approval, regulatory authorities may approve any of our current or future product candidates for fewer or more limited indications than we request, may not approve the price we intend to charge for our drugs, may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials, or may approve a product candidate with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that product candidate. Any of the foregoing scenarios could materially harm the commercial prospects for our current or future product candidates.

If we experience delays in obtaining approval or if we fail to obtain approval of our current or future product candidates, the commercial prospects for our current or future product candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate revenues will be materially impaired.

Our current or future product candidates may cause adverse or other undesirable side effects that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval, limit the commercial profile of an approved label, or result in significant negative consequences following marketing approval, if any.

Undesirable side effects caused by our current or future product candidates could cause us to interrupt, delay or halt preclinical studies or could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. As is the case with many treatments for cancer, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, neurodegeneration or other diseases it is likely that there may be adverse side effects associated with the use of our product candidates. Additionally, a potential risk in any protein degradation product is that healthy proteins or proteins not targeted for degradation will be degraded or that the degradation of the targeted protein, in itself, could cause adverse events, undesirable side effects, or unexpected consequences. It is possible that healthy proteins or proteins not targeted for degradation could be degraded using our MGD molecules in any of our planned or future clinical studies. There is also the potential risk of delayed adverse events following treatment using any of our current or future product candidates.

These side effects could arise due to off-target activity, allergic reactions in trial subjects or unwanted on-target effects in the body. Results of our current or planned clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of these or other side effects. In such an event, our trials could be suspended or terminated and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of, or deny approval of, our current or future product candidates for any or all targeted indications. The drug-related side effects could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Further, our current or future product candidates could cause undesirable side effects in clinical trials related to on-target toxicity. If on-target toxicity is observed, or if our current or future product candidates have characteristics that are unexpected, we may need to abandon their development or limit development to more narrow uses or subpopulations in which the undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective. Many compounds that initially showed promise in early-stage testing for treating cancer or other diseases have later been found to cause side effects that prevented further development of the compound.

In addition, clinical trials by their nature utilize a sample of the potential patient population. With a limited number of patients and limited duration of exposure, rare and severe side effects of our current or future product candidates may only be uncovered with a significantly larger number of patients exposed to the product candidate. In any such event, our studies could be suspended or terminated and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. The side effects experienced could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled subjects to complete the study or result in potential product liability claims. Moreover, if we elect, or are required, not to initiate, or to delay, suspend or terminate any future clinical trial of any of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of such product candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate product revenues from any of these product candidates may be delayed or eliminated. Any of these occurrences may harm our ability to develop other product candidates, and may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

In addition, if our current or future product candidates receive marketing approval and we or others identify undesirable side effects caused by such current or future product candidates after such approval, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

We believe that any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product candidates and could substantially increase the costs of commercializing our current or future product candidates, if approved, and significantly impact our ability to successfully commercialize our current or future product candidates and generate revenues.

We may seek and fail to obtain Breakthrough Therapy Designation or Fast Track Designation from the FDA for our current or future product candidates. Even if granted for any of our current or future product candidates, these programs may not lead to a faster development, regulatory review or approval process, and such designations do not increase the likelihood that any of our product candidates will receive marketing approval in the United States.

We may seek a Breakthrough Therapy Designation for one or more of our current or future product candidates. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a drug that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For drugs that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens. Product candidates designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA may also be eligible for priority review and accelerated approval. Designation as a breakthrough therapy is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe one of our current or future product candidates meets the criteria for designation as a breakthrough therapy, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. In any event, the receipt of a Breakthrough Therapy Designation for a current or future product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to drugs considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our current or future product candidates qualify as breakthrough therapies, the FDA may later decide that such product candidates no longer meet the conditions for qualification and rescind the designation or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

We have been granted Fast Track Designations for MRT-2359 for the treatment of patients with previously treated, metastatic small cell lung cancer (SCLC) with L-MYC or N-MYC expression and MRT-2359 for the treatment of patients with previously treated, metastatic NSCLC with L-MYC or N-MYC expression. We may seek additional Fast Track Designations for one or more of our current or future product candidates, as appropriate. If a product candidate is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and preclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address an unmet medical need for this condition, the product sponsor may apply for Fast Track Designation. The sponsor of a product candidate with Fast Track Designation has opportunities for more frequent interactions with the applicable FDA review team during product development and, once an NDA is submitted, the product candidate may be eligible for priority review. Such product candidate may also be eligible for rolling review, where the FDA may consider reviewing sections of the NDA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant this designation, so even if we believe a particular current or future product candidate is eligible for this designation, we cannot assure you that the FDA would decide to grant it. Even if we do receive Fast Track Designation for certain current or future product candidates, such as the Fast Track Designation we received for MRT-2359 for the treatment of patients with previously treated, metastatic small cell lung cancer (SCLC) with L-MYC or N-MYC expression and MRT-2359 for the treatment of patients with previously treated, metastatic NSCLC with L-MYC or N-MYC expression, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. The FDA may rescind Fast Track Designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. Fast Track Designation alone does not guarantee qualification for the FDA’s priority review procedures.

We may seek approval from the FDA through the use of the accelerated approval pathway. If we are unable to obtain such approval, we may be required to conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials beyond those that we contemplate, which could increase the expense of obtaining, and delay the receipt of, necessary marketing approvals. Even if we receive accelerated approval from the FDA, if our confirmatory trials do not verify clinical benefit, or if we do not comply with rigorous post-marketing requirements, the FDA may seek to withdraw accelerated approval.

A product may be eligible for accelerated approval if it is designed to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and generally provides a meaningful advantage over available therapies upon a determination that the product candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint or intermediate clinical endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, or IMM, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on IMM or other clinical benefit. The FDA considers a clinical benefit to be a positive therapeutic effect that is clinically meaningful in the context of a given disease, such as IMM. For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit, but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. The accelerated approval pathway may be used in cases in which the advantage of a new drug over available therapy may not be a direct therapeutic advantage,

but is a clinically important improvement from a patient and public health perspective. If granted, accelerated approval is usually contingent on the sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verity and describe the drug’s clinical benefit. Under FDORA, the FDA is permitted to require, as appropriate, that a post-approval confirmatory study or studies be underway prior to approval or within a specified time period after the date of approval for a product granted accelerated approval. FDORA also requires sponsors to send updates to the FDA every 180 days on the status of such studies, including progress toward enrollment targets, and the FDA must promptly post this information publicly. FDORA also gives the FDA increased authority to withdraw approval of a drug or biologic granted accelerated approval on an expedited basis if the sponsor fails to conduct such studies in a timely manner, send the necessary updates to the FDA, or if such post-approval studies fail to verify the drug’s predicted clinical benefit. Under FDORA, the FDA is empowered to take action, such as issuing fines, against companies that fail to conduct with due diligence any post-approval confirmatory study or submit timely reports to the agency on their progress. In addition, for products being considered for accelerated approval, the FDA generally requires, unless otherwise informed by the Agency, that all advertising and promotional materials intended for dissemination or publication within 120 days of marketing approval be submitted to the Agency for review during the pre-approval review period. There can be no assurance that the FDA would allow any of the product candidates we may develop to proceed on an accelerated approval pathway, and even if the FDA did allow such pathway, there can be no assurance that such submission or application will be accepted or that any expedited development, review or approval will be granted on a timely basis, or at all. Moreover, even if we received accelerated approval, any post-approval studies required to confirm and verify clinical benefit may not show such benefit, which could lead to withdrawal of any approvals we have obtained. Receiving accelerated approval does not assure that the product’s accelerated approval will eventually be converted to a traditional approval.

We may seek Orphan Drug Designation for certain of our current or future product candidates, and we may be unsuccessful or may be unable to maintain the benefits associated with Orphan Drug Designation, including the potential for market exclusivity.

We have been granted by FDA Orphan Drug Designation for MRT-2359 for the treatment of small cell lung cancer, and as part of our business strategy, we may seek Orphan Drug Designation for certain indications of our other current or future product candidates, and we may be unsuccessful. Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the U.S. and Europe, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a drug as an orphan drug if it is a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals annually in the U.S., or a patient population of 200,000 or more in the U.S. where there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug will be recovered from sales in the U.S. In the U.S., Orphan Drug Designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and user-fee waivers.

Similarly, in the European Union, the European Commission, upon the recommendation of the EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products, may grant orphan designation in respect of products that are intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions affecting not more than 5 in 10,000 persons in the EU. Additionally, orphan designation may be granted for products intended for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions, and when, without incentives, it is unlikely that sales of the product in the EU would generate sufficient return to justify the necessary investment in developing the product. In each case, there must be no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of the applicable condition which is authorized for marketing in the EU (or, if such a method exists, the applicable product would be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition). In the EU, orphan designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers.

Generally, if a product with an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes the FDA or the EMA from approving another marketing authorization application for the same drug for the same indication for that time period. The applicable period is seven years in the U.S. and ten years in the European Union. The exclusivity period in the European Union can be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, a drug no longer meets the criteria for orphan designation or if the drug is sufficiently profitable so that market exclusivity is no longer justified. Orphan drug exclusivity may be lost if the FDA or EMA determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the drug to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition.

Even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product candidate, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product candidate from competition because different therapies can be approved for the same condition and the

same therapies can be approved for different conditions but used off-label. Even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve the same drug for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later drug is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. In addition, a designated orphan drug may not receive orphan drug exclusivity if it is approved for a use that is broader than the indication for which it received orphan designation. Orphan Drug Designation neither shortens the development time or regulatory review time of a drug nor gives the drug any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process. While we may seek Orphan Drug Designation for applicable indications for our current and any future product candidates, we may never receive such designations. Even if we do receive such designations, there is no guarantee that we will enjoy the benefits of those designations.

Even if we receive marketing authorization for our product candidates, we will be subject to extensive ongoing regulatory obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or experience unanticipated problems with our product candidates.

If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority approves any of our current or future product candidates, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion and recordkeeping for the drug will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration requirements, continued compliance with cGMPs and GCPs, and applicable product tracking and tracing requirements. Any regulatory approvals that we receive for our current or future product candidates may also be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the drug may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the drug. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a drug, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with our third-party manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in, among other things:

The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit our ability to commercialize our product candidates and generate revenue and could require us to expend significant time and resources in response and could generate negative publicity.

The FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our current or future product candidates. We also cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained, which would adversely affect our business, prospects and ability to achieve or sustain profitability.

Even if we receive marketing approval for our current or future product candidates in the U.S., we may never receive regulatory approval to market our current or future product candidates outside of the U.S.

We plan to seek regulatory approval of our current or future product candidates outside of the U.S. Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of our product candidates in one jurisdiction does not guarantee that we will be able to obtain or maintain regulatory approval in any other jurisdiction.

For example, even if the FDA grants marketing approval of a product candidate, we may not obtain approvals in other jurisdictions, and comparable regulatory authorities in foreign jurisdictions must also approve the manufacturing, marketing and promotion and reimbursement of the product candidate in those countries. However, a failure or delay in obtaining marketing approval in one jurisdiction may have a negative effect on the regulatory approval process in others. Approval procedures vary among countries and can involve additional product candidate testing and administrative review periods different from those in the United States. The time required to obtain approvals in other countries might differ substantially from that required to obtain FDA approval. The marketing approval processes in other countries generally implicate all of the risks detailed above regarding FDA approval in the U.S. as well as other risks. In particular, in many countries outside of the U.S., products must receive pricing and reimbursement approval before the product can be commercialized. Obtaining this approval can result in substantial delays in bringing products to market in such countries.

Obtaining foreign regulatory approvals and establishing and maintaining compliance with foreign regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products in certain countries. If we or any future collaborator fail to comply with regulatory requirements in international markets or fail to receive applicable marketing approvals, it would reduce the size of our potential market, which could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and prospects.

If we fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.

We are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Our operations involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological and radioactive materials. Our operations also produce hazardous waste products. We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from our use of hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties.

Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. We do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us in connection with our storage or disposal of biological, hazardous or radioactive materials. In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. Current or future environmental laws and regulations may impair our research, development and production efforts, which could harm our business, prospects, financial condition or results of operations.

Our future growth may depend, in part, on our ability to penetrate foreign markets, where we would be subject to additional regulatory burdens and other risks and uncertainties that could materially adversely affect our business.

We are not permitted to market or promote any of our current or future product candidates before we receive regulatory approval from the applicable regulatory authority in that foreign market, and we may never receive such regulatory approval for any of our current or future product candidates. To obtain separate regulatory approval in many other countries we must comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of such countries regarding safety and efficacy. Such requirements govern, among other things, clinical trials and commercial sales, and pricing and distribution of our current or future product candidates, and we cannot predict success in these jurisdictions. If we obtain approval of our current or future product candidates and ultimately commercialize our current or future product candidates in foreign markets, we would be subject to additional risks and uncertainties, including:

Foreign sales of our current or future product candidates could also be adversely affected by the imposition of governmental controls, political and economic instability, trade restrictions and changes in tariffs.

Changes in funding or disruptions at the FDA, the SEC and other government agencies caused by funding shortages or global health concerns could hinder their ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, or otherwise prevent new or modified products from being developed, approved or commercialized in a timely manner or at all, or otherwise prevent those agencies from performing normal business functions on which the operation of our business may rely, which could negatively impact our business.

The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and statutory, regulatory and policy changes and other events that may otherwise affect the FDA’s ability to perform routine functions. Average review times at the FDA have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of the SEC and other government agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable.

Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the past decade, the U.S. government shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, had to furlough critical employees and stop critical activities.

If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, or if global health concerns prevent the FDA or other regulatory authorities from conducting their regular inspections, reviews or other regulatory activities, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a

material adverse effect on our business. Further, in our operations as a public company, future government shutdowns or delays could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations.

We may in the future conduct clinical trials for current or future product candidates outside the U.S., and the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not accept data from such trials.

We may in the future choose to conduct one or more clinical trials outside the U.S., including in Europe. The acceptance of study data from clinical trials conducted outside the U.S. or another jurisdiction by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may be subject to certain conditions or may not be accepted at all. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the sole basis for marketing approval in the U.S., the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (i) the data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice; (ii) the trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence and pursuant to GCP regulations; and (iii) the data may be considered valid without the need for an on-site inspection by the FDA, or if the FDA considers such inspection to be necessary, the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means. In addition, even where the foreign study data are not intended to serve as the sole basis for approval, the FDA will not accept the data as support for an application for marketing approval unless the study is well-designed and well-conducted in accordance with GCP and the FDA is able to validate the data from the study through an onsite inspection if deemed necessary. Many foreign regulatory authorities have similar approval requirements. In addition, such foreign trials would be subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted. There can be no assurance that the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority will accept data from trials conducted outside of the U.S. or the applicable jurisdiction. If the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority does not accept such data, it would result in the need for additional trials, which could be costly and time-consuming, and which may result in current or future product candidates that we may develop not receiving approval for commercialization in the applicable jurisdiction.

We are subject to certain U.S. and foreign anti-corruption, anti-money laundering, export control, sanctions, and other trade laws and regulations. We can face serious consequences for violations.

Among other matters, U.S. and foreign anti-corruption, anti-money laundering, export control, sanctions, and other trade laws and regulations, which we collectively refer to as Trade Laws, prohibit companies and their employees, agents, clinical research organizations, legal counsel, accountants, consultants, contractors, and other partners from authorizing, promising, offering, providing, soliciting, or receiving directly or indirectly, corrupt or improper payments or anything else of value to or from recipients in the public or private sector. Violations of Trade Laws can result in substantial criminal fines and civil penalties, imprisonment, the loss of trade privileges, debarment, tax reassessments, breach of contract and fraud litigation, reputational harm, and other consequences. We have direct or indirect interactions with officials and employees of government agencies or government-affiliated hospitals, universities, and other organizations.

Governments outside the United States tend to impose strict price controls, which may adversely affect our revenues, if any.

In some countries, the pricing of prescription 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 candidates. 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 countries and parallel distribution or arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced countries, 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, which is time-consuming and costly. If coverage and reimbursement of our product candidates are unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our business could be harmed, possibly materially.

Risks related to commercialization

Even if we receive marketing approval for our current or future product candidates, our current or future product candidates may not achieve broad market acceptance, which would limit the revenue that we generate from their sales.

The commercial success of our current or future product candidates, if approved by the FDA or other applicable regulatory authorities, will depend upon the awareness and acceptance of our current or future product

candidates among the medical community, including physicians, patients and healthcare payors. If our product candidates do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant revenue and we may not become profitable. Market acceptance of our current or future product candidates, if approved, will depend on a number of factors, including, among others:

If our current or future product candidates are approved but do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance by patients, physicians and payors, we may not generate sufficient revenue from our current or future product candidates to become or remain profitable. Before granting reimbursement approval, healthcare payors may require us to demonstrate that our current or future product candidates, in addition to treating these target indications, also provide incremental health benefits to patients. Our efforts to educate the medical community, patient organizations and third-party payors about the benefits of our current or future product candidates may require significant resources and may never be successful.

If we are unable to establish sales, marketing and distribution capabilities for any product candidate that may receive regulatory approval, we may not be successful in commercializing those product candidates if and when they are approved.

We do not have sales or marketing infrastructure. To achieve commercial success for any product candidate for which we may obtain marketing approval, we will need to establish a sales and marketing organization. In the future, we expect to build a focused sales and marketing infrastructure to market some of our product candidates in the United States, if and when they are approved. There are risks involved with establishing our own sales, marketing and distribution capabilities. For example, recruiting and training a sales force is expensive and time consuming and could delay any product launch. If the commercial launch of a product candidate for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization expenses. This may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our sales and marketing personnel.

Factors that may inhibit our efforts to market our products on our own include:

If we are unable to establish our own sales, marketing and distribution capabilities and are forced to enter into arrangements with, and rely on, third parties to perform these services, our revenue and our profitability, if any, are likely to be lower than if we had developed such capabilities ourselves. In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to sell, market and distribute our product candidates or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us. We likely will have little control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our products effectively. If we do not establish sales, marketing and distribution capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing our product candidates.

The market opportunities for any current or future product candidate we develop, if and when approved, may be limited to those patients who are ineligible for established therapies or for whom prior therapies have failed, and may be small.

Cancer therapies are sometimes characterized as first-line, second-line, or third-line, and the FDA often approves new therapies initially only for third-line use. When cancer is detected early enough, first-line therapy, usually chemotherapy, hormone therapy, surgery, radiation therapy or a combination of these, is sometimes adequate to cure the cancer or prolong life without a cure. Second- and third-line therapies are administered to patients when prior therapy is not effective. We expect to initially seek approval of our product candidates we develop as a therapy for patients who have received one or more prior treatments. Subsequently, for those products that prove to be sufficiently beneficial, if any, we would expect to seek approval potentially as a first-line therapy, but there is no guarantee that product candidates we develop, even if approved, would be approved for first-line therapy, and, prior to any such approvals, we may have to conduct additional clinical trials.

The number of patients who have the cancers we are targeting may turn out to be lower than expected. Additionally, the potentially addressable patient population for our current programs or future product candidates in both oncology and non-oncology indications may be limited, if and when approved. Even if we obtain significant market share for any product candidate, if and when approved, if the potential target populations are small, we may never achieve profitability without obtaining marketing approval for additional indications, including to be used as first- or second-line therapy.

We face substantial competition, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing drugs before or more successfully than we do.

The development and commercialization of new drugs is highly competitive. We face and will continue to face competition from third parties that use protein degradation, antibody therapy, inhibitory nucleic acid, gene editing or gene therapy development platforms and from companies focused on more traditional therapeutic modalities, such as small molecule inhibitors. Potential competitors also include academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing and commercialization of new drugs.

We are aware of several biotechnology companies focused on developing MGD therapeutics for patients, including but not limited to, BioTheryX Therapeutics, Inc., C4 Therapeutics, Inc., Nurix Therapeutics, Inc., Kymera Therapeutics, Inc., Seed Therapeutics, Inc., Plexium Inc, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Proxygen GmbH, VantAI, Inc., Orionis Biosciences, Inc., Dunad Therapeutics, Ltd, and Captor Therapeutics, SA, all of which are currently in development. In addition, lenalidomide and pomalidomide, which are both marketed by Bristol-Myers Squibb, are believed to function as MGDs. Further, several large pharmaceutical companies have disclosed investments in this field.

Many of our current or future competitors have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and reimbursement and marketing of approved drugs than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and diagnostic industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, sales, marketing and management personnel and

establishing clinical trial sites and patient recruitment for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize drugs that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any drugs that we or our collaborators may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their drugs more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we or our collaborators are able to enter the market. The key competitive factors affecting the success of all of our current or future product candidates, if approved, are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience, price, the level of generic competition and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors.

Product liability lawsuits against us could cause us to incur substantial liabilities and could limit commercialization of any current or future product candidates that we may develop.

We will face an inherent risk of product liability exposure related to the testing of our current or future product candidates in human clinical trials and will face an even greater risk if we commercially sell any current or future product candidates that we may develop. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against claims that our current or future product candidates caused injuries, we could incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

We do not yet maintain product liability insurance, and we anticipate that we will need to increase our insurance coverage when we begin clinical trials and if we successfully commercialize any product candidate. Insurance coverage is increasingly expensive. We may not be able to maintain product liability insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in an amount adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise.

Even if we are able to commercialize any current or future product candidates, such drugs may become subject to unfavorable pricing regulations or third-party coverage and reimbursement policies, which would harm our business.

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any products for which we may obtain regulatory approval. In the U.S. and in other countries, sales of any products for which we may receive regulatory marketing approval for commercial sale will depend, in part, on the availability of coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors. Third-party payors include government healthcare programs (e.g., Medicare and Medicaid), managed care providers, private health insurers, health maintenance organizations and other organizations. These third-party payors decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. The availability of coverage and extent of reimbursement by governmental and other third-party payors is essential for most patients to be able to afford treatments such as targeted protein degradation therapies. See the section of this report titled, “Business – Government Regulation – Third-party payor coverage and reimbursement.”

Current and future healthcare legislative reform measures may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

In the United States and in some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and likely will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes intended to broaden access to healthcare, improve the quality of healthcare, and contain or lower the cost of healthcare. For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or the ACA, was passed, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacted the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The ACA, among other things, subjected drug products to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars, expanded the types of entities eligible for the

340B drug discount program, addressed a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, increased rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extended the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, establishes annual fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs, and created a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 70% point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D; and provided incentives to programs that increase the federal government’s comparative effectiveness research.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. See the section of this report titled, “Business – Government Regulation - Current and future healthcare reform legislation.”

We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our current or future product candidates or additional pricing pressures. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action in the United States. If we or any third parties we may engage are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we or such third parties are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, our product candidates may lose any regulatory approval that may have been obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

Our relationships with customers, health care providers, physicians, and third-party payors will be subject to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, exclusion from government healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm and diminished future profits and earnings.

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any current or future product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Our business operations and any current or future arrangements with third-party payors and customers may expose us to broadly applicable federal and state laws relating to fraud and abuse, as well as other healthcare laws and regulations. These laws may impact, among other things, the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute any current or future product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. See the section of this report titled, "Business - Government Regulation – Other healthcare laws and regulations.”

It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices, including our arrangements with certain physicians, some of whom are compensated in the form of stock or stock options for services provided to us, do 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 to be found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, imprisonment, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, as well as additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar settlement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to similar actions, penalties, and sanctions.

The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians to induce or encourage the prescription, recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order or use of medicinal products is also prohibited in the EU. The provision of benefits or advantages to induce improper performance generally is governed by the national anti-bribery laws of EU Member States, and the U.K. Bribery Act 2010 in the U.K. Infringement of these laws could result in substantial fines and imprisonment. Payments made to physicians in certain EU Member States must be publicly disclosed. Moreover, agreements with physicians often must be the subject of prior notification and approval by the physician’s employer, his or her competent professional organization and/or the regulatory authorities of the individual EU Member States. These requirements are provided in the national laws, industry codes or professional codes of conduct, applicable in the EU Member States. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment.

Risks related to our dependence on third parties

We currently rely, and plan to rely on in the future, on third parties to conduct and support our preclinical studies and to conduct our clinical trials for our current and future product candidates. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, comply with regulatory requirements or meet expected deadlines, we may not be able to obtain marketing approval for or commercialize our current and potential future product candidates and our business could be substantially harmed.

We utilize and depend upon independent investigators and collaborators, such as medical institutions, CROs, CMOs and strategic partners to help conduct our preclinical studies and our clinical trials.

We do not have the ability to independently conduct clinical trials. We rely, and plan to continue to rely on in the future, on medical institutions, clinical investigators, contract laboratories, and other third parties, including collaboration partners, to conduct or otherwise support clinical trials for our current or future product candidates. We expect to rely heavily on these parties for execution of clinical trials for our product candidates and control only certain aspects of their activities. Nevertheless, we will be responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal and regulatory requirements and scientific standards, and our reliance on CROs will not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities.

We and any third parties that we contract with are required to comply with regulations and requirements, including GCP requirements, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for product candidates in clinical development, for conducting, monitoring, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials to ensure that the data and results are scientifically credible and accurate, and that the trial patients are adequately informed of the potential risks of participating in clinical trials and their rights are protected. These regulations are enforced by the FDA, the Competent Authorities of the Member States of the EEA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for any drugs in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCP requirements through periodic inspections of clinical trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we or the third parties we contract with fail to comply with applicable GCP requirements, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that, upon inspection, the FDA will determine that any of our ongoing or future clinical trials will comply with GCP requirements. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with current or future product candidates produced under cGMP regulations and will require a large number of study subjects. Our failure or the failure of third parties that we may contract with to comply with these regulations or to recruit a sufficient number of subjects may require us to repeat some aspects of a specific, or an entire, clinical trial, which would delay the marketing approval process and could also subject us to enforcement action. We also are required to register certain ongoing clinical trials and provide certain information, including information relating to the trial’s protocol, on a government-sponsored database, ClinicalTrials.gov, within specific timeframes. Failure to do so can result in fines, adverse publicity and civil and criminal sanctions.

Although we intend to design the clinical trials for our current or future product candidates, or be involved in the design when other parties sponsor the trials, we anticipate that third parties will conduct all of our clinical trials. As a result, many important aspects of our clinical development, will be outside of our direct control. Our reliance on third parties to conduct our ongoing clinical trial and future clinical trials will also result in less direct control over the management of data developed through clinical trials than would be the case if we were relying entirely upon our own staff, and we cannot control whether or not they will devote sufficient time and resources to our product candidates. These third parties may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials or other product development activities, which could affect their performance on our behalf. Communicating with outside parties can also be challenging, potentially leading to mistakes as well as difficulties in coordinating activities. Outside parties may:

These factors may materially adversely affect the willingness or ability of third parties to conduct our clinical trials and may subject us to unexpected cost increases that are beyond our control. If our CROs do not perform clinical trials in a satisfactory manner, breach their obligations to us or fail to comply with regulatory requirements, the development, marketing approval and commercialization of our current or future product candidates may be

delayed, we may not be able to obtain marketing approval and commercialize our current or future product candidates, or our development programs may be materially and irreversibly harmed. If we are unable to rely on clinical data collected by our CROs, we could be required to repeat, extend the duration of, or increase the size of any clinical trials we conduct and this could significantly delay commercialization and require significantly greater expenditures.

If any of our relationships with these third-party CROs terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. If our CROs do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain are compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols, regulatory requirements or for other reasons, any clinical trials such CROs are associated with may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain marketing approval for or successfully commercialize our current or future product candidates. As a result, we believe that our financial results and the commercial prospects for our current or future product candidates in the subject indication would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed.

The third parties upon whom we rely on for the supply of drug product and starting materials used in our product candidates are limited in number, and the loss of any of these suppliers, or their noncompliance with regulatory requirements or our quality standards, could significantly harm our business.

The drug substance and drug product in our product candidates are supplied to us from a small number of suppliers, and in some cases sole source suppliers. Our ability to successfully develop our current or future product candidates, and to ultimately supply our commercial drugs in quantities sufficient to meet the market demand, depends in part on our ability to obtain the drug product and drug substance for these drugs in accordance with regulatory requirements and in sufficient quantities for commercialization and clinical testing.

The facilities used by our contract manufacturers to manufacture our product candidates will be identified in, and subject to inspections that will be conducted after we submit, any marketing application to the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities. We may not control the manufacturing process of, and may be completely dependent on, our contract manufacturing partners for compliance with cGMP requirements and any other regulatory requirements of the FDA or other regulatory authorities for the manufacture of our product candidates. Beyond periodic audits, we have no control over the ability of our contract manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve our marketing applications identifying these facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates or if it withdraws any approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would require that we incur significant additional costs and materially adversely affect our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our product candidates, if approved. Similarly, if any third-party manufacturers on which we will rely fail to manufacture quantities of our product candidates at quality levels necessary to meet regulatory requirements and at a scale sufficient to meet anticipated demand at a cost that allows us to achieve profitability, our business, financial condition and prospects could be materially and adversely affected.

Further, we do not currently have arrangements in place for a redundant or second-source supply of all drug product or drug substance in the event any of our current suppliers of such drug product and drug substance cease their operations for any reason. Any delays in the delivery of our drug substance, drug product or starting materials could have an adverse effect and potentially harm our business.

For all of our current or future product candidates, we intend to identify and qualify additional manufacturers to provide drug product and drug substance prior to submission of an NDA to the FDA and/or an MAA to the EMA. We are not certain, however, that our single-source and dual source suppliers will be able to meet our demand for their products, either because of the nature of our agreements with those suppliers, our limited experience with those suppliers or our relative importance as a customer to those suppliers. It may be difficult for us to assess their ability to timely meet our demand in the future based on past performance. While our suppliers have generally met our demand for their products on a timely basis in the past, they may subordinate our needs in the future to their other customers.

Establishing additional or replacement suppliers for the drug product and drug substance used in our current or future product candidates, if required, may not be accomplished quickly. In some cases, the technical skills required to manufacture our products or product candidates may be unique or proprietary to the original supplier and we may have difficulty, or there may be contractual restrictions prohibiting us from, transferring such skills to a back-up or alternate supplier, or we may be unable to transfer such skills at all. If we are able to find a replacement supplier, such replacement supplier would need to be qualified and may require additional regulatory

approval, which could result in further delay. In addition, changes in manufacturers often involve changes in manufacturing procedures and processes, which could require that we conduct bridging studies between our prior clinical supply used in our clinical trials and that of any new manufacturer. We may be unsuccessful in demonstrating the comparability of clinical supplies which could require the conduct of additional clinical trials.

While we seek to maintain adequate inventory of the drug product and drug substance used in our current or future product candidates, any interruption or delay in the supply of components or materials, or our inability to obtain drug product and drug substance from alternate sources at acceptable prices in a timely manner, could impede, delay, limit or prevent our development efforts, which could harm our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

In addition, some of our suppliers are located outside of the United States. We currently have a supplier based in Ukraine which supplies us with services and materials related to the ongoing expansion of our library of MGDs. Although we have reduced the work done by this supplier, continued Ukrainian geopolitical developments, including military activities related to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, could adversely affect the ability for such supplier to meet our ongoing demand. We also have a supplier based in China which supplies us with services and materials to support the ongoing expansion of our library of MGDs and materials for use in the pre-clinical and clinical development of our product candidates, including for MRT-2359, and recent changes in U.S.-China trade policies, and a number of other economic and geopolitical factors both in China and abroad could affect the ability for such supplier to meet our ongoing demand. Disruptions in our suppliers ability to meet our ongoing demand could have an adverse effect on our business and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

We have entered into a Collaboration and License Agreement with Roche, and pursuant to the terms of that agreement, are dependent on Roche for certain development and commercialization activities with respect to certain of our product candidates.

In October 2023, we announced that Monte Rosa Therapeutics AG, our wholly-owned subsidiary, entered into a Collaboration and License Agreement with F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, or Roche Basel, and Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., or Roche US, and together with Roche Basel, Roche, the Collaboration “Agreement.” Pursuant to the Agreement, we and Roche will seek to identify and develop MGDs against cancer or neurological disease targets using our proprietary drug discovery platform for an initial set of targets in oncology and neuroscience selected by Roche, with Roche having an option to expand the collaboration with an additional set of targets under certain conditions, each target being subject to certain substitution rights owned by Roche. Pursuant to the Agreement, we will lead pre-clinical discovery and research activities until a defined point. Upon such point, Roche gains the right to exclusively pursue further pre-clinical and clinical development activities. Under the Agreement, Roche will have a worldwide, exclusive license under patents and know-how controlled by us to develop and commercialize products directed to applicable targets. The research collaboration activities governed by the Agreement will be overseen by a joint research committee. Pursuant to the Agreement, Under the terms of the agreement, we received an upfront payment of $50 million, and are eligible to receive future preclinical, clinical, commercial and sales milestone payments that could exceed $2 billion, including up to $172 million for achieving pre-clinical milestones. Roche has an option to expand the collaboration with an additional set of targets under certain conditions. For the optional additional targets, we are entitled to receive from Roche an upfront payment of up to $28 million, and potential pre-clinical, clinical, commercial, and sales milestones exceeding $1 billion. We are also eligible to receive tiered royalties ranging from high-single-digit percent to low-teens percent on any products that are commercialized by Roche as a result of the collaboration.

Unless earlier terminated, the Agreement will remain in effect for each product licensed under the Agreement until expiration of the royalty term for the applicable product. The parties have included customary termination provisions in the agreement, allowing termination of the Agreement in its entirety, on a country-by-country or a target-by-target basis. If Roche elects to exercise these termination rights, it will result in a delay in or could prevent us from developing or commercializing certain product candidates. Further, disputes may arise between us and Roche, which may delay or cause the termination of this Agreement, result in significant litigation, cause Roche to act in a manner that is not in our best interest or cause us to seek another collaborator or proceed with development, commercialization and funding on our own. If we seek a new collaborator but are unable to do so on acceptable terms, or at all, or do not have sufficient funds to conduct the development or commercialization of such development candidates we may have to curtail or abandon that development or commercialization, which could harm our business.

Our success is dependent on our executive management team’s ability to successfully pursue business development, strategic partnerships and investment opportunities as our company matures. We are

engaged in a strategic collaboration and may also form or seek strategic alliances or acquisitions or enter into additional collaboration and licensing arrangements in the future, and we may not realize the benefits of such collaborations, alliances, acquisitions or licensing arrangements.

We are engaged in a strategic collaboration and may in the future form or seek strategic alliances or acquisitions, create joint ventures, or enter into additional collaboration and licensing arrangements with third parties that we believe will complement or augment our development and commercialization efforts with respect to our current product candidates and any future product candidates that we may develop. Any of these relationships may require us to incur non-recurring and other charges, increase our near and long-term expenditures, issue securities that dilute our existing stockholders or disrupt our management and business. For example, on October 16, 2023, we entered into the Agreement with Roche for the discovery and development of MGDs against targets in cancer and neurological diseases. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, we granted to Roche an exclusive license to use certain of our platform technology for the exploitation of compounds and products discovered and developed under the arrangement.

In addition, we face significant competition in seeking appropriate strategic partners and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. Moreover, we may not be successful in our efforts to establish a strategic partnership or acquisition or other alternative arrangements for our current or future product candidates because they may be deemed to be at too early of a stage of development for collaborative effort and third parties may not view our current or future product candidates as having the requisite potential to demonstrate safety, potency, purity and efficacy and obtain marketing approval.

Further, collaborations involving our technologies or current or future product candidates, such as our collaboration with Roche, are subject to numerous risks, which may include the following:

As a result, we may not be able to realize the benefits of our existing collaboration and licensing arrangements or any future strategic partnerships or acquisitions, collaborations or license arrangements we may enter into if we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing operations and company culture, which could delay our timelines or otherwise adversely affect our business. We also cannot be certain that, following a strategic

transaction, license, collaboration or other business development partnership, we will achieve the revenue or specific net income that justifies such transaction. Any delays in entering into new collaborations or strategic partnership agreements related to our current or future product candidates could delay the development and commercialization of our current or future product candidates in certain geographies or for certain indications, which would harm our business prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Manufacturing our current or future product candidates is complex and we may encounter difficulties in production. If we encounter such difficulties, our ability to provide supply of our current or future product candidates for our preclinical studies and clinical trials or for commercial purposes could be delayed or stopped.

The process of manufacturing of our current or future product candidates is complex and highly regulated. We do not have our own manufacturing facilities or personnel and currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the manufacture of our current or future product candidates. These third-party manufacturing providers may not be able to provide adequate or timely resources or capacity to meet our needs and may incorporate their own proprietary processes into our product candidate manufacturing processes. We have limited control and oversight of a third party’s proprietary process, and a third party may elect to modify its process without our consent or knowledge. These modifications could negatively impact our manufacturing, including product loss or failure that requires additional manufacturing runs or a change in manufacturer, either of which could significantly increase the cost of and significantly delay the manufacture of our current or future product candidates.

As our current or future product candidates progress through preclinical studies and clinical trials towards potential approval and commercialization, it is expected that various aspects of the manufacturing process will be altered in an effort to optimize processes and results. Such changes may require amendments to be made to regulatory applications which may further delay the timeframes under which modified manufacturing processes can be used for any of our current or future product candidates and additional bridging studies or trials may be required and may not be successful. We may be unsuccessful in demonstrating the comparability of clinical supplies which could require the conduct of additional clinical trials. Any such delay could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and prospects.

Our manufacturing process needs to comply with FDA regulations relating to the quality and reliability of such processes. Any failure to comply with relevant regulations could result in delays in or termination of our preclinical and future clinical programs and suspension or withdrawal of any regulatory approvals.

In order to commercially produce our products either at our own facility or at a third party’s facility, we will need to comply with the FDA’s cGMP regulations and guidelines. We may encounter difficulties in achieving quality control and quality assurance and may experience shortages in qualified personnel. We and our third-party manufacturers are subject to inspections by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities to confirm compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. Any failure to follow cGMP or other regulatory requirements or delay, interruption or other issues that arise in the manufacture, fill-finish, packaging, or storage of our product candidates as a result of a failure of our facilities or the facilities or operations of third parties to comply with regulatory requirements or pass any regulatory authority inspection could significantly impair our ability to develop and commercialize our current or future product candidates, including leading to significant delays in the availability of our product candidates for our future clinical trials or the termination of or suspension of a future clinical trial, or the delay or prevention of a filing or approval of marketing applications for our current or future product candidates. Significant non-compliance could also result in the imposition of sanctions, including warning or untitled letters, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, failure of regulatory authorities to grant marketing approvals for our current or future product candidates, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could damage our reputation and our business.

If our third-party manufacturers use hazardous and biological materials in a manner that causes injury or violates applicable law, we may be liable for damages.

Our research and development activities involve the controlled use of potentially hazardous substances, including chemical materials, by our third-party manufacturers. Our manufacturers are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations in the U.S. governing the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of medical and hazardous materials. Although we believe that our manufacturers’ procedures for using, handling, storing and disposing of these materials comply with legally prescribed standards, we cannot completely eliminate the risk of contamination or injury resulting from medical or hazardous materials. As a result of any such contamination or injury, we may incur liability or local, city, state or federal authorities may curtail the use of these materials and interrupt our business operations. In the event of an accident, we could be held liable for damages or penalized

with fines, and the liability could exceed our resources. We do not have any insurance for liabilities arising from medical or hazardous materials. Compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations is expensive, and current or future environmental regulations may impair our research, development and production efforts, which could harm our business, prospects, financial condition or results of operations.

Risks related to intellectual property

If we are unable to obtain and maintain patent and other intellectual property protection for our technology and product candidates or if the scope of the intellectual property protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize technology and drugs similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our technology and drugs may be impaired, and we may not be able to compete effectively in our market.

We rely upon a combination of patents, trademarks, trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect the intellectual property related to our products and technologies and to prevent third parties from copying and surpassing our achievements, thus eroding our competitive position in our market. Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent or other intellectual property protection in the U.S. and other countries for our current or future product candidates and our core technologies, including our proprietary QuEENTM platform, our GSPT1 program, including our clinical stage product candidate named MRT-2359, our VAV1 program, including our product candidate named MRT-6160, our NEK7 program, including our product candidate named MRT-8102, and our CDK2 program programs, which are our three most advanced preclinical stage pipeline programs, as well as our proprietary compound library and other know-how. We seek to protect our proprietary and intellectual property position by, among other methods, filing patent applications in the U.S. and abroad related to our proprietary technology, inventions and improvements that are important to the development and implementation of our business.

As of December 31, 2023, we owned thirty-one patent families related to our QuEEN™ platform, our CDK2 program, our NEK7 program, our VAV1 program, and our GSPT1 program, including GSPT1-directed MGDs and biomarkers related to these compounds. We currently own one issued patent. Further, patent prosecution related to our pending patent applications is on-going.

As of December 31, 2023, our patent portfolio covering GSPT1-directed MGDs and uses thereof included eleven patent families, our patent portfolio related to our QuEEN™platform included seven patent families, our patent portfolio related to our CDK2 program included three patent families, our patent portfolio related to our NEK7 program included one patent family and our patent portfolio related to our VAV1 program included one patent family. Patent term adjustments, supplementary protection certificate filings, or patent term extensions could result in later expiration dates in various countries, while terminal disclaimers could result in earlier expiration dates in the U.S.

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. As such, we cannot guarantee that our pending and future patent applications will result in patents being issued or that issued patents will afford sufficient protection of our product candidates or their intended uses against competitors, nor can there be any assurance that the patents issued will not be infringed, designed around, invalidated by third parties, or effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies, products or product candidates.

The degree of patent protection we require to successfully commercialize our current or future product candidates may be unavailable or severely limited in some cases and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep any competitive advantage. We cannot provide any assurances that any of our pending patent applications that mature into issued patents will include claims with a scope sufficient to protect our QuEEN™ platform and our current or future product candidates. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patent applications or any patents we may own or in-license is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates.

Other parties have developed technologies that may be related or competitive to our own, and such parties may have filed or may file patent applications, or may have acquired or may acquire patents, claiming inventions that may overlap or conflict with those claimed in our own patent applications or issued patents, with respect to either the same compounds, methods, formulations or other subject matter, in either case that we may rely upon to dominate our patent position in the market. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the U.S. and other jurisdictions are typically not published until at least 18 months after the earliest priority date of the patent 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 patents we may own or in-license patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. In addition, the USPTO might require that the term of a patent issuing from a pending patent application be disclaimed and limited to the term of another patent that is commonly owned or names a common inventor. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights cannot be predicted with any certainty. In addition, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States.

In addition, 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 or in a timely manner. Further, with respect to certain pending patent applications covering our current or future product candidates or technologies, prosecution has yet to commence and as such, no patent examiner has scrutinized the merits of such pending patent applications. Patent prosecution is a lengthy process, during which the scope of the claims initially submitted for examination by the relevant patent office(s) may be significantly narrowed by the time they issue, if they ever do. 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. Moreover, 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 or to third parties. Therefore, these patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business.

Even if we acquire patent protection that we expect should enable us to establish and/or maintain a competitive advantage, third parties may challenge the validity, enforceability or scope thereof, which may result in such patents being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable. The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the U.S. and abroad. We may become involved in opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review, or post-grant review proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others from whom we may in the future obtain licenses to such rights, in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, the European Patent Office, or EPO, or the relevant patent authorities in other countries. In addition, we may be subject to third-party submissions to the USPTO, the EPO, or elsewhere, that may reduce the scope or preclude the granting of claims from our pending patent applications. Competitors may challenge our issued patents or may file patent applications before we do.

Competitors may also claim that we are infringing their patents and that we therefore cannot practice our technology as claimed under our patents or patent applications. Competitors may also contest our patents by arguing before an administrative patent authority or judge that the invention was not patent-eligible, was not novel, was obvious, and/or lacked inventive steps, and/or that the patent application failed to meet relevant requirements relating to description, basis, enablement, and/or support; in litigation, a competitor could assert that our patents are not valid or are unenforceable for a number of reasons. If a court or administrative patent authority agrees, we would lose our protection of those challenged patents.

An adverse determination in any such submission or proceeding may result in loss of exclusivity or freedom to operate or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and drugs, without payment to us, or could limit the duration of the patent protection covering our technology and current or future product candidates. Such challenges may also result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize our current or future 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.

Even if they are unchallenged, our issued patents and our pending patent applications, if issued, may not provide us with any meaningful protection or prevent competitors from designing around our patent claims to circumvent patents we may own or in-license by developing similar or alternative technologies or drugs in a non-infringing manner. For example, a third party may develop a competitive drug or product that provides benefits similar to one or more of our current or future product candidates but that has a different composition or otherwise falls outside the scope of our patent protection. If the patent protection provided by the patents and patent applications we hold or pursue with respect to our current or future product candidates is not sufficiently broad to impede such competition, our ability to successfully commercialize our current or future product candidates could be negatively affected, which would harm our business.

Obtaining and maintaining our patent protection, including patent term, depends on compliance with various procedural, document submission, deadlines, fee payment and other requirements imposed by

governmental patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated if we miss a filing deadline for patent protection on these inventions or otherwise fail to comply with these requirements.

The USPTO and foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process and after issuance of any patent. In addition, periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and/or various other government fees are required to be paid periodically. While an inadvertent lapse can in some 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 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 with similar or identical products or platforms, which could have a material adverse effect on our business prospects and financial condition.

Patent terms may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on our product candidates for an adequate amount of time.

Patents have a limited lifespan. In the U.S., and most other jurisdictions in which we have undertaken patent filings, the natural expiration of a patent is generally twenty years after it is filed, assuming all maintenance fees are paid. Various extensions may be available, on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis; however, the life of a patent, and thus the protection it affords, is limited. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, patents we may own or in-license may not provide us with adequate and continuing patent protection sufficient to exclude others from commercializing drugs similar or identical to our current or future product candidates, including generic versions of such drugs.

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA marketing approval of our current or future product candidates, one or more of the U.S. patents we own or license may be eligible for limited patent term restoration under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent restoration term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. Different laws govern the extension of patents on approved pharmaceutical products in Europe and other jurisdictions. However, we may not be granted a patent extension because of, for example, failing to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. For example, we may not be granted an extension in the U.S. if all of our patents covering an approved product expire more than fourteen years from the date of NDA approval for a product covered by those patents. Moreover, the applicable time period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or restoration or the term of any such extension is less than we request, our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration, and our ability to generate revenues could be materially adversely affected.

If our trademarks and trade names for our products or company name are not adequately protected in one or more countries where we intend to market our products, we may delay the launch of product brand names, use different trademarks or tradenames in different countries, or face other potentially adverse consequences to building our product brand recognition.

We use and will continue to use registered and/or unregistered trademarks or trade names to brand and market ourselves and our products. Our trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, diluted, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. We intend to rely on both registration and common law protection for our trademarks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names or may be forced to stop using these names, which we need for name recognition by potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. During the trademark registration process, we may receive Office Actions from the USPTO or from comparable agencies in foreign jurisdictions objecting to the registration of our trademark. In addition, in the USPTO and in comparable agencies in many foreign jurisdictions, third parties are given an opportunity to oppose pending trademark applications and/or to seek the cancellation of registered trademarks. Opposition or cancellation proceedings may be filed against our trademark applications or registrations, and our trademark applications or registrations may not survive such proceedings. In addition, there could be potential trade name or trademark infringement claims brought by owners of other trademarks or

trademarks that incorporate variations of our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names. Over the long run, if we are unable to obtain a registered trademark or establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected.

Additionally, we may license our trademarks and trade names to third parties, such as distributors. Though these license agreements may provide guidelines for how our trademarks and trade names may be used, a breach of these agreements or misuse of our trademarks and tradenames by our licensees may jeopardize our rights in or diminish the goodwill associated with our trademarks and trade names.

If we are unable to adequately protect and enforce our trade secrets, our business and competitive position would be harmed.

In addition to the protection afforded by patents we may own or in-license, we seek to rely on trade secret protection, confidentiality agreements, and license agreements to protect proprietary know-how that may not be patentable, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce and any other elements of our product discovery and development processes that involve proprietary know-how, information, or technology that may not be covered by patents. Although we require all of our employees, consultants, advisors and any third parties who have access to our proprietary know-how, information, or technology to enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements, trade secrets can be difficult to protect and we have limited control over the protection of trade secrets used by our collaborators and suppliers. We cannot be certain that we have or will obtain these agreements in all circumstances and 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 information.

Moreover, any of these parties might breach the agreements and intentionally or inadvertently disclose our trade secret information and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. In addition, competitors may otherwise gain access (such as through unauthorized access to our information technology systems) to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. If we choose to go to court to stop a third party from using any of our trade secrets, we may incur substantial costs. These lawsuits may consume our time and other resources even if we are successful. Furthermore, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights and trade secrets to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the U.S. We may need to share our proprietary information, including trade secrets, with future business partners, collaborators, contractors and others located in countries at heightened risk of theft of trade secrets, including through direct intrusion by private parties or foreign actors, and those affiliated with or controlled by state actors. As a result, we may encounter significant problems in protecting and defending our intellectual property both in the U.S. and abroad. If we are unable to prevent unauthorized material disclosure of our intellectual property to third parties, we will not be able to establish or maintain a competitive advantage in our market, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and future prospects.

We may initiate, become a defendant in, or otherwise become party to lawsuits to protect or enforce our intellectual property rights, which could be expensive, time-consuming and unsuccessful.

Competitors may infringe or otherwise violate any patents or other intellectual property we may own or in-license. In addition, any patents we may own or in-license also may become involved in inventorship, priority, validity or unenforceability disputes. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. Any such claims could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us, including claims alleging that we infringe their patents or other intellectual property rights. In patent litigation in the U.S. and in some other jurisdictions, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, for example, 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 material information from the USPTO or the applicable foreign counterpart, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. A litigant or the USPTO itself could challenge our patents on this basis even if we believe that we have conducted our patent prosecution in accordance with the duty of candor and in good faith. The outcome following such a challenge is unpredictable. Moreover, with respect to challenges to the validity of our patents, there might be invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution.

We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that one or more of any patents we may own or in-license is not valid or is unenforceable or that the other party’s use of our technology that may be patented falls under the safe harbor to patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(e)(1).

There is also the risk that, even if the validity of these patents is upheld, the court may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that any patents we may own or in-license do not cover the technology in question or that such third party’s activities do not infringe our patent applications or any patents we may own or in-license. An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of any patents we may own or in-license at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable, or interpreted narrowly and could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing. Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to our intellectual property rights may cause us to incur significant expenses, and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing, patient support or distribution activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately. Some of 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.

We may be required to protect our patents through procedures created to attack the validity of a patent at the USPTO. Post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review and derivation proceedings, provoked by third parties or brought by the USPTO may be necessary to determine the validity or priority of inventions with respect to our patent applications or any patents we may own or in-license. These proceedings are expensive and an unfavorable outcome could result in a loss of our current patent rights and could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms. In addition to potential USPTO post-grant proceedings, we may become a party to patent opposition proceedings in the EPO, or similar proceedings in other foreign patent offices or courts where our patents may be challenged. The costs of these proceedings could be substantial, and may result in a loss of scope of some claims or a loss of the entire patent. An unfavorable result in a post-grant challenge proceeding may result in the loss of our right to exclude others from practicing one or more of our inventions in the relevant country or jurisdiction, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Litigation or post-grant proceedings within patent offices may result in a decision adverse to our interests and, even if we are successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees.

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. 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.

We may not be able to detect infringement against any patents we may own or in-license. Even if we detect infringement by a third party of any patents we may own or in-license, we may choose not to pursue litigation against or settlement with the third party. If we later sue such third party for patent infringement, the third party may have certain legal defenses available to it, which otherwise would not be available except for the delay between when the infringement was first detected and when the suit was brought. Such legal defenses may make it impossible for us to enforce any patents we may own or in-license against such third party.

Intellectual property litigation and administrative patent office patent validity challenges in one or more countries could cause us to spend substantial resources and distract our personnel from their normal responsibilities. 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 technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could compromise our ability to compete in the marketplace, including compromising our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our preclinical studies and future clinical trials, continue our discovery programs, license necessary technology from third parties, or enter into development collaborations that would help us commercialize our current or future product candidates, such as our collaboration with Roche, if approved.

In addition, if our product candidates are found to infringe the intellectual property rights of third parties, these third parties may assert infringement claims against our licensees and other parties with whom we have business relationships, and we may be required to indemnify those parties for any damages they suffer as a result of these claims. The claims may require us to initiate or defend protracted and costly litigation on behalf of licensees and other parties regardless of the merits of these claims. If any of these claims succeed, we may be forced to pay damages on behalf of those parties or may be required to obtain licenses for the products they use.

Any of the foregoing events would harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship of our patents and other intellectual property.

We may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an interest in our patents or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. The failure to name the proper inventors on a patent application can result in the patents issuing thereon being unenforceable. Inventorship disputes may arise from conflicting views regarding the contributions of different individuals named as inventors, the effects of foreign laws where foreign nationals are involved in the development of the subject matter of the patent, conflicting obligations of third parties involved in developing our product candidates or as a result of questions regarding co-ownership of potential joint inventions. Litigation may be necessary to resolve these and other claims challenging inventorship and/or ownership. Alternatively, or additionally, we may enter into agreements to clarify the scope of our rights in such intellectual property. 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.

Our current and future licensors may have relied on third-party consultants or collaborators or on funds from third parties, such as the U.S. government, such that our licensors are not the sole and exclusive owners of the patents we in-licensed. If other third parties have ownership rights or other rights to our in-licensed patents, they may be able to license such patents to our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and technology. This could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

In the case of employees, we enter into agreements providing that all inventions conceived by the individual, and which 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. Although we require all of our employees to assign their inventions to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who, in fact, conceives or develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. 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. Such claims could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Third parties may initiate legal proceedings alleging that we are infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating their intellectual property rights, the outcome of which would be uncertain. Defending against such law suits will be costly and time consuming, and an unfavorable outcome in that litigation would have a material adverse effect on our business.

The intellectual property landscape relevant to our products and programs is crowded, and third parties may initiate legal proceedings alleging that we are infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating their intellectual property rights, the outcome of which would be uncertain and could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business. Our commercial success depends upon our ability to develop, manufacture, market and sell our current and future product candidates and use our proprietary technologies without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the valid and enforceable intellectual property rights of third parties. There is a substantial amount of litigation involving patents and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, as well as administrative proceedings for challenging patents, including derivation, interference, reexamination, inter partes review and post grant review proceedings before the USPTO or oppositions and other comparable proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. We or any of our current or future licensors or strategic partners may be party to, exposed to, or threatened with, future adversarial proceedings or litigation by third parties having patent or other intellectual property rights alleging that our current or future product candidates and/or proprietary technologies infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate their intellectual property rights. We cannot assure you that our current or future product candidates, the QuEENTM platform, and other technologies that we have developed, are developing or may develop in the future do not or will not infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate existing or future patents or other intellectual property rights owned by third parties.

While certain activities related to development and preclinical and clinical testing of our current or future product candidates may be subject to safe harbor of patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(e)(1), upon receiving FDA approval for such candidates we or any of our future licensors or strategic partners may immediately become party to, exposed to, or threatened with, future adversarial proceedings or litigation by third parties having patent

or other intellectual property rights alleging that such product candidates infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate their intellectual property rights. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are developing our current or future product candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our current or future 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 drugs, products or their methods of use or manufacture. Thus, because of the large number of patents issued and patent applications filed in our fields, there may be a risk that third parties may allege they have patent rights encompassing our current or future product candidates, technologies or methods.

If a third party claims that we infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate its intellectual property rights, we may face a number of issues, including, but not limited to:

Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources. In addition, any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our operations or could otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. The occurrence of any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. Patents issued in the U.S. by law enjoy a presumption of validity that can be rebutted in U.S. courts only with evidence that is “clear and convincing,” a heightened standard of proof. There may be issued third-party patents of which we are currently unaware with claims to compositions, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our current or future product candidates. Patent applications can take many years to issue. In addition, because some patent applications in the U.S. may be maintained in secrecy until the patents are issued, patent applications in the U.S. and many foreign jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after their earliest priority filing date, and publications in the scientific literature often lag behind actual discoveries, we cannot be certain that others have not filed patent applications covering our current or future product candidates or technology. If any such patent applications issue as patents, and if such patents have priority over our patent applications or patents we may own or in-license, we may be required to obtain rights to such patents owned by third parties which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or may only be available on a non-exclusive basis. There may be currently pending third-party patent applications which may later result in issued patents that our current or future product candidates may infringe. It is also possible that patents owned by third parties of which we are aware, but which we do not believe are relevant to our current or future product candidates or other technologies, could be found to be infringed by our current or

future product candidates or other technologies. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents. Moreover, we may fail to identify relevant patents or incorrectly conclude that a patent is invalid, not enforceable, exhausted, or not infringed by our activities. If any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover the manufacturing process of our current or future product candidates, molecules used in or formed during the manufacturing process, or any final product itself, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize the product candidate unless we obtained a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire or they are finally determined to be held invalid or unenforceable. Similarly, if any third-party patent were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our formulations, processes for manufacture or methods of use, including combination therapy or patient selection methods, the holders of any such patent may be able to block our ability to develop and commercialize the product candidate unless we obtained a license or until such patent expires or is finally determined to be held invalid or unenforceable. In either case, such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. If we are unable to obtain a necessary license to a third-party patent on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, our ability to commercialize our current or future product candidates or the QuEENTM platform may be impaired or delayed, which could in turn significantly harm our business. Even if we obtain a license, it may be nonexclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us.

In addition, parties making claims against us may seek and obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize our current or future product candidates. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, could involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. In the event of a successful claim of infringement, misappropriation or other violation against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, obtain one or more licenses from third parties, pay royalties or redesign our infringing products, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. We cannot predict whether any such license would be available at all or whether it would be available on commercially reasonable terms. Furthermore, even in the absence of litigation, we may need or may choose to obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of our current or future product candidates, which licenses may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. In that event, we would be unable to further develop and commercialize our current or future product candidates or technologies, which could harm our business significantly.

We may be subject to claims that our employees, consultants or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information or alleged trade secrets of third parties or competitors or are in breach of non-competition or non-solicitation agreements with our competitors or their former employers.

As is common in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, we employ individuals and engage the services of consultants who previously worked for other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although no claims against us are currently pending and we try to ensure that our employees, consultants and advisors 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 these individuals have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such individual’s former employer. We may also be subject to claims that patents and applications we have filed to protect inventions of our employees, consultants and advisors, even those related to one or more of our current or future product candidates, the QuEEN™ platform, or other technologies, are rightfully owned by their former or concurrent employer. 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.

We will not obtain patent or other intellectual property protection for any current or future product candidates in all jurisdictions throughout the world, and we may not be able to adequately enforce our intellectual property rights even in the jurisdictions where we seek protection.

We may not be able to pursue patent coverage of our current or future product candidates, the QuEEN™ platform, or other technologies in all countries. Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on current or future product candidates, the QuEEN™ platform, and other technologies in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and intellectual property rights in some countries outside the U.S. can be less extensive than those in the U.S. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to

the same extent as federal and state laws in the U.S. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing on our inventions in all countries outside the U.S., or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the U.S. or other jurisdictions. Competitors 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 U.S. These products may compete with our current or future product candidates and in jurisdictions where we do not have any issued patents our patent applications or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing. Much of our patent portfolio is at the very early stage. We will need to decide whether and in which jurisdictions to pursue protection for the various inventions in our portfolio prior to applicable deadlines.

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 pharmaceutical products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of any patents we may own or in-license or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce any rights we may have in our patent applications or any patents we may own or in-license in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put any patents we may own or in-license at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing, and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property 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 are forced to grant a license to third parties with respect to any patents we may own or license that are relevant to our business, our competitive position may be impaired, and our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects may be adversely affected.

We may not obtain or grant licenses or sublicenses to intellectual property rights in all markets on equally or sufficiently favorable terms with third parties.

It may be necessary for us to use the patented or proprietary technology of third parties to commercialize our products, in which case we would be required to obtain a license from these third parties. The licensing of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and more established companies may pursue strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider attractive or necessary. More 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 license such technology, or if we are forced to license such technology on unfavorable terms, our business could be materially harmed. If we are unable to obtain a necessary license, we may be unable to develop or commercialize the affected current or future product candidates, which could materially harm our business, and the third parties owning such intellectual property rights could seek either an injunction prohibiting our sales, or, with respect to our sales, an obligation on our part to pay royalties or other forms of compensation. Even if we are able to obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. Any of the foregoing could harm our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

The Collaboration and License Agreement with Roche under which we currently license intellectual property or technology is complex, and certain provisions in such agreement, or other future collaboration and license agreements, may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology, increase what we believe to be our financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, or decrease what we believe to be the financial or other obligations of our licensee under the relevant agreement, any of which could materially harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Moreover, if disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements or obtain additional licensing arrangements on commercially

acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected products or product candidates, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

Further, our licensors may retain certain rights under their agreements with us, including the right to use the underlying technology for noncommercial academic and research use, to publish general scientific findings from research related to the technology, and to make customary scientific and scholarly disclosures of information relating to the technology. It is difficult to monitor whether our licensors limit their use of the technology to these uses, and we could incur substantial expenses to enforce our rights to our licensed technology in the event of misuse. In addition, the United States federal government retains certain rights in inventions produced with its financial assistance under the Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act, or the Bayh-Dole Act. The federal government retains a “nonexclusive, nontransferable, irrevocable, paid-up license” for its own benefit. The Bayh-Dole Act also provides federal agencies with “march-in rights.” March-in rights allow the government, in specified circumstances, to require the contractor or successors in title to the patent to grant a “nonexclusive, partially exclusive, or exclusive license” to a “responsible applicant or applicants.” If the patent owner refuses to do so, the government may grant the license itself. If, in the future, we co-own or license in technology which is critical to our business that is developed in whole or in part with federal funds subject to the Bayh-Dole Act, our ability to enforce or otherwise exploit patents covering such technology may be adversely affected.

If we fail to comply with our obligations in our current or any future agreements under which we may license intellectual property rights from third parties or otherwise experience disruptions to our business relationships with our licensors, we could lose license rights that are important to our business.

We are dependent on patents, know-how and proprietary technology, both our own and in-licensed from collaborators. We may in the future enter into more license agreements with third parties under which we receive rights to intellectual property that are important to our business. Our commercial success depends upon our ability to develop, manufacture, market and sell our current or future product candidates and use our and our licensors’ proprietary technologies without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. Our success will also depend in part on the ability of our licensors to obtain, maintain and enforce patent protection for our licensed intellectual property, in particular, those patents to which we have secured exclusive rights. Our licensors may not successfully prosecute the patent applications to which we are licensed. Even if patents are issued in respect of these patent applications, our licensors may fail to maintain these patents, may determine not to pursue litigation against other companies that are infringing these patents, or may pursue such litigation less aggressively than we would. Without protection for the intellectual property we license, other companies might be able to offer substantially identical products for sale, which could adversely affect our competitive business position and harm our business prospects. Further, we may have limited control over these activities or any other intellectual property that may be in-licensed. For example, we cannot be certain that such activities by licensors have been or will be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations or will result in valid and enforceable patents and other intellectual property rights. We may have limited control over the manner in which our licensors initiate an infringement proceeding against a third-party infringer of the intellectual property rights, or defend certain of the intellectual property that is licensed to us. It is possible that the licensors’ infringement proceeding or defense activities may be less vigorous than had we conducted them ourselves. In the event our licensors fail to adequately pursue and maintain patent protection for patents and applications they control, and to timely cede control of such prosecution to us, our competitors might be able to enter the market, which would have a material adverse effect on our business.

In addition, our current and future intellectual property license agreements may require us various development, regulatory and/or commercial diligence obligations, payment of milestones and/or royalties and other obligations. If we fail to comply with our obligations under these agreements, we use the licensed intellectual property in an unauthorized manner or we are subject to bankruptcy-related proceedings, the terms of the licenses may be materially modified, such as by rendering currently exclusive licenses non-exclusive, or it may give our licensors the right to terminate their respective agreement with us. Any termination of these licenses, or if the underlying patents fail to provide the intended exclusivity, could result in the loss of significant rights and could harm our ability to commercialize our current or future product candidates, the QuEENTM platform, or other technologies, competitors or other third parties would have the freedom to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, products identical to ours, and we may be required to cease our development and commercialization of certain of our current or future product candidates. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

Disputes may also arise between us and our current or future licensors regarding intellectual property subject to a license agreement, including:

In addition, the agreements under which we may license intellectual property or technology from third parties are likely to be complex, and certain provisions in such agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology, or increase what we believe to be our financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Moreover, if disputes over intellectual property that we may license prevent or impair our ability to maintain current or future licensing arrangements on acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected current or future product candidates or technologies, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial conditions, results of operations and prospects.

Changes in patent law in the U.S. and in foreign jurisdictions could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products.

Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. Assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, prior to March 16, 2013, in the United States, the first to invent the claimed invention was entitled to the patent, while outside the United States, the first to file a patent application was entitled to the patent. On March 16, 2013, under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the America Invents Act, enacted in September 2011, the United States transitioned to a first inventor to file system in which, assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether a third party was the first to invent the claimed invention. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO on or after March 16, 2013, 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 such third party. This will require us to be cognizant of the time from invention to filing of a patent application. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing or until issuance, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to either (i) file any patent application related to our product candidates or (ii) invent any of the inventions claimed in our or our licensor’s patents or patent applications.

The America Invents Act also includes a number of significant changes that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and also may affect patent litigation. These include allowing third party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent by USPTO administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings. Because of a lower evidentiary standard in USPTO proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in United States federal courts 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 district court action. Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district court action. Therefore, the America Invents Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our owned or in-licensed patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our owned or in-licensed issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

In addition, the patent positions of companies in the development and commercialization of biopharmaceuticals are particularly uncertain. 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. 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 have a material adverse effect on our existing patent portfolio and our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property in the future.

We may not identify relevant third-party patents or may incorrectly interpret the relevance, scope or expiration of a third-party patent, which might subject us to infringement claims or adversely affect our ability to develop and market our current or future product candidates.

We cannot guarantee that any of our or our licensors’ patent searches or analyses, including the identification of relevant patents, the scope of patent claims or the expiration of relevant patents, are complete or thorough, nor can we be certain that we have identified each and every third-party patent and pending patent application in the U.S. and abroad that is relevant to or necessary for the commercialization of our current or future product candidates in any jurisdiction. For example, U.S. patent applications filed before November 29, 2000, and certain U.S. patent applications filed after that date that will not be filed outside the U.S. remain confidential until patents issue. As mentioned above, patent applications in the U.S. and elsewhere are published approximately 18 months after the earliest filing for which priority is claimed, with such earliest filing date being commonly referred to as the priority date. Therefore, patent applications covering our current or future product candidates could have been filed by third parties without our knowledge. Additionally, pending patent applications that have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our current or future product candidates or the use of our current or future product candidates. The scope of a patent claim is determined by an interpretation of the law, the written disclosure in a patent and the patent’s prosecution history. Our interpretation of the relevance or the scope of a patent or a pending application may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to market our current or future product candidates. We may incorrectly determine that our current or future product candidates are not covered by a third-party patent or may incorrectly predict whether a third party’s pending application will issue with claims of relevant scope. Our determination of the expiration date of any patent in the U.S. or abroad that we consider relevant may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our current or future product candidates. Our failure to identify and correctly interpret relevant patents may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our current or future product candidates.

If we fail to identify and correctly interpret relevant patents, we may be subject to infringement claims. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to successfully settle or otherwise resolve such infringement claims. If we fail in any such dispute, in addition to being forced to pay damages, which may be significant, we may be temporarily or permanently prohibited from commercializing any of our current or future product candidates or technologies that are held to be infringing. We might, if possible, also be forced to redesign current or future product candidates so that we no longer infringe the third-party intellectual property rights. Any of these events, even if we were ultimately to prevail, could require us to divert substantial financial and management resources that we would otherwise be able to devote to our business and could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Intellectual property rights do not guarantee commercial success of current or future product candidates or other business activities. Numerous factors may limit any potential competitive advantage provided by our intellectual property rights.

The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights, whether owned or in-licensed, is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations, and may not adequately protect our business, provide a barrier to entry against our competitors or potential competitors, or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. Moreover, if a third party has intellectual property rights that cover the practice of our technology, we may not be able to fully exercise or extract value from our intellectual property rights. The following examples are illustrative:

Should any of these events occur, they could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

European patents and patent applications could be challenged in the recently created Unified Patent Court (UPC) for the European Union.

Our owned European patents and patent applications could be challenged in the recently created Unified Patent Court (UPC) for the European Union. We may decide to opt out our European patents and patent applications from the UPC. However, if certain formalities and requirements are not met, our European patents and patent applications could be challenged for non-compliance and brought under the jurisdiction of the UPC. We cannot be certain that our or our licensors’ European patents and patent applications will avoid falling under the jurisdiction of the UPC, if we decide to opt out of the UPC. Under the UPC, a granted European patent would be valid and enforceable in numerous European countries. A successful invalidity challenge to a European patent under the UPC would result in loss of patent protection in those European countries. Accordingly, a single proceeding under the UPC could result in the partial or complete loss of patent protection in numerous European countries, rather than in each validated European country separately as such patents always have been adjudicated. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business and our ability to commercialize our technology and products and, resultantly, on our business, financial condition, prospects and results of operations.

The use of new and evolving technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI), in our business may result in spending material resources and presents risks and challenges that can impact our business including by posing security and other risks to our confidential information, proprietary information and personal information, and as a result we may be exposed to reputational harm and liability.

We continue to build and integrate AI into our business, in particular as a component of our QuEEN drug discovery platform, and this innovation presents risks and challenges that could affect its adoption, and therefore our business. The use of certain artificial intelligence technology can give rise to intellectual property risks, including compromises to proprietary intellectual property and intellectual property infringement. Additionally, we expect to see increasing government and supranational regulation related to artificial intelligence use and ethics, which may also significantly increase the burden and cost of research, development and compliance in this area. For example, the EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act (“AI Act”) — the world’s first comprehensive AI law — is anticipated to enter into force in 2024 and, with some exceptions, become effective 24 months thereafter. This

legislation imposes significant obligations on providers and deployers of high-risk artificial intelligence systems, and encourages providers and deployers of artificial intelligence systems to account for EU ethical principles in their development and use of these systems. If we develop or deploy AI systems that are governed by the AI Act, we may be required to adopt higher standards of data quality, transparency, and human oversight, and adhere to specific and potentially burdensome and costly ethical, accountability, and administrative requirements. The rapid evolution of AI will require the application of significant resources to design, develop, test and maintain our products and services to help ensure that AI is implemented in accordance with applicable law and regulation and in a socially responsible manner and to minimize any real or perceived unintended harmful impacts. Our vendors may in turn incorporate AI tools into their own offerings, and the providers of these AI tools may not meet existing or rapidly evolving regulatory or industry standards, including with respect to privacy and data security. Further, bad actors around the world use increasingly sophisticated methods, including the use of AI, to engage in illegal activities involving the theft and misuse of personal information, confidential information and intellectual property. Any of these effects could damage our reputation, result in the loss of valuable property and information, cause us to breach applicable laws and regulations, and adversely impact our business.

Risks related to employee matters and managing growth

Our future success depends on our ability to retain key executives and to attract, retain and motivate qualified personnel.

We are highly dependent on the research and development, clinical and business development expertise of Markus Warmuth, M.D., our Chief Executive Officer, Owen Wallace, Ph.D., our Chief Scientific Officer, John Castle, Ph.D., our Chief Data and Information Officer, Sharon Townson, our Chief Technology Officer, Filip Janku, our Chief Medical Officer, Philip Nickson, our General Counsel, Jennifer Champoux, our Chief People and Operations Officer, Magnus Walter, our Senior Vice President of Drug Discovery, and Andrew Funderburk, our Senior Vice President of Investor Relations and Strategic Financing, as well as the other principal members of our management and scientific teams. Although we have entered into employment letter agreements with our executive officers, each of them may terminate their employment with us at any time. We do not maintain “key person” insurance for any of our executives or other employees. In addition, we rely on consultants and advisors, including scientific and clinical advisors, to assist us in formulating our research and development and commercialization strategy. Our consultants and advisors may be employed by employers other than us and may have commitments under consulting or advisory contracts with other entities that may limit their availability to us. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain high quality personnel, our ability to pursue our growth strategy will be limited.

Recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, clinical, manufacturing and sales and marketing personnel will also be critical to our success. The loss of the services of our executive officers or other key employees could impede the achievement of our research, development and commercialization objectives and seriously harm our ability to successfully implement our business strategy. Furthermore, replacing executive officers and key employees may be difficult and may take an extended period of time because of the limited number of individuals in our industry with the breadth of skills and experience required to successfully develop, gain regulatory approval of and commercialize drugs. Competition to hire from this limited pool is intense, and we may be unable to hire, train, retain or motivate these key personnel on acceptable terms given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for similar personnel. We also experience competition for the hiring of scientific and clinical personnel from universities and research institutions. Failure to succeed in clinical trials may make it more challenging to recruit and retain qualified scientific personnel. In addition, in order to induce employees to continue their employment with us, we have provided equity awards that vest over time and the value to our employees of such equity awards may be significantly affected by movements in our stock price that are beyond our control and may be at any time insufficient to counteract more lucrative offers from other companies. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain high quality personnel, the rate and success at which we can develop and commercialize product candidates will be limited.

We will need to develop and expand our company, and we may encounter difficulties in managing this development and expansion, which could disrupt our operations.

As of December 31, 2023, we had 133 full-time employees. We expect to increase our number of employees and the scope of our operations, including the areas of data sciences, platform biology and chemistry, drug discovery, clinical development, finance, business development, and legal. To manage our anticipated development and expansion, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems, expand our facilities and continue to recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Our management may need to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from its day-to-day activities and devote a substantial

amount of time to managing these development activities. Due to our limited resources, we may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations or recruit and train additional qualified personnel. This may result in weaknesses in our infrastructure, give rise to operational mistakes, loss of business opportunities, loss of employees and reduced productivity among remaining employees. The expansion of our operations may lead to significant costs and may divert financial resources from other projects, such as the development of our current or future product candidates. If our management is unable to effectively manage our expected development and expansion, our expenses may increase more than expected, our ability to generate or increase our revenue could be reduced and we may not be able to implement our business strategy. Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize our current or future product candidates, if approved, and compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage the future development and expansion of our company.

We have offices in multiple countries and we may further expand in the future, which presents challenges in managing our business operations.

We are headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts and have offices in Basel, Switzerland. Conducting our business in multiple countries subjects us to a variety of risks and complexities that may materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition and growth prospects, including, among other things:

We continue to expand our operations, and our corporate structure and tax structure is complex. In connection with our current and future potential partnerships, we are actively engaged in developing and applying technologies and intellectual property with a view toward commercialization of products globally, often with commercialization partners. In connection with those activities, we already have and will likely continue to engage in complex cross-border and global transactions involving our technology, intellectual property and other assets, between us and other entities such as partners and licensees, and between us and our subsidiaries. Such cross-border and global arrangements are both difficult to manage and can potentially give rise to complexities in areas such as tax treatment, particularly since we are subject to multiple tax regimes and different tax authorities can also take different views from each other, even as regards the same cross-border transaction or arrangement. There can be no assurance that we will effectively manage this increased complexity without experiencing operating inefficiencies, control deficiencies or tax liabilities. Significant management time and effort is required to effectively manage the increased complexity of our company, and our failure to successfully do so could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

We may be unable to adequately protect our information systems from cyberattacks, which could result in the disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, including personal data, damage our reputation, and subject us to significant financial and legal exposure.

We rely on information technology systems that we or our third-party providers operate to process, transmit and store electronic information in our day-to-day operations. In connection with our product discovery efforts, we may collect and use a variety of personal data, such as name, mailing address, email addresses, phone number and clinical trial information. A successful cyberattack could result in the theft or destruction of intellectual property, data or other misappropriation of assets, or otherwise compromise our confidential or proprietary information and disrupt our operations. Cyberattacks generally are increasing in their frequency, sophistication and intensity, and have become increasingly difficult to detect. Cyberattacks could include wrongful conduct by hostile foreign governments, or employees, industrial espionage, wire fraud and other forms of cyber fraud, the deployment of harmful malware, denial-of-service, ransomeware social engineering (including fishing attacks) fraud or other means to threaten data security, confidentiality, integrity and availability. A successful cyberattack could cause serious negative consequences for us, including, without limitation, the disruption of operations, the

misappropriation of protected information or confidential business information, including financial information, trade secrets, financial loss and the disclosure of corporate strategic plans. Although we devote resources to protect our information systems, we realize that cyberattacks are a threat, and there can be no assurance that our efforts will prevent cybersecurity incidents or breaches that would result in business, legal, financial or reputational harm to us, or would have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. In addition, although we carry cyber insurance, in the event of a cybersecurity incident or breach, such coverage may not be sufficient to cover all losses. Any failure to prevent or mitigate or adequately address any cybersecurity incidents or breaches or improper access to, use of, or disclosure of our clinical data or patients’ personal data could result in significant liability under Swiss national data protection laws, U.S. state (e.g., state breach notification laws), and/or federal (e.g., HIPAA, as amended by HITECH) laws, and laws of foreign jurisdictions (e.g., the EU General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR) and may cause a material adverse impact to our reputation, affect our ability to use collected data, conduct new studies and potentially disrupt our business.

We rely on our third-party providers to implement effective security measures and identify and correct for any such failures, deficiencies, cybersecurity incidents, or breaches. We also rely on our employees and consultants to safeguard their security credentials and follow our policies and procedures regarding use and access of computers and other devices that may contain our sensitive information. If we or our third-party providers fail to maintain or protect our information technology systems and data integrity effectively or fail to anticipate, plan for or manage significant disruptions to our information technology systems, we or our third-party providers could have difficulty preventing, detecting and controlling such cyber-attacks and any such attacks could result in losses described above, as well as disputes with physicians, patients and our partners, litigation, regulatory sanctions or penalties, increases in operating expenses, expenses or lost revenues or other adverse consequences, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, prospects and cash flows. Any failure by such third parties to prevent or mitigate or adequately address any cybersecurity incidents or breaches or improper access to or disclosure of such information could have similarly adverse consequences for us. If we are unable to prevent or mitigate the impact of such cybersecurity incidents or breaches or data privacy incidents, we could be exposed to litigation and governmental investigations, which could lead to a potential disruption to our business, or fines and penalties.

We, our collaborators and our service providers may be subject to a variety of privacy and data security laws, regulations and contractual obligations, and our failure to comply with them could harm our business.

We maintain a large quantity of sensitive information, including confidential business and patient health information in connection with our preclinical studies, and are subject to laws and regulations governing the privacy and security of such information. In the United States, there are numerous federal and state privacy and data security laws and regulations governing the collection, use, disclosure and protection of personal information, including federal and state health information privacy laws, federal and state security breach notification laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws. Each of these laws is subject to varying interpretations and new laws continue to be proposed. At the state level, numerous states have or are in the process of enacting or considering comprehensive state-level data privacy and security laws, rules and regulations while other states have focused on more narrow aspects of privacy. In the state of Washington, for example, the My Health My Data Act will require regulated entities to obtain consent to collect health information, grant consumers certain rights, including to request deletion of their information, and provide for robust enforcement mechanisms, including enforcement by the Washington state attorney-general and a private right of action for consumer claims.

Outside of the United States, many jurisdictions have enacted stringent privacy and data protection laws. The collection, use, disclosure, transfer or other processing of personal data originating from the European Economic Area, or EEA, and United Kingdom, or UK, is governed by the General Data Protection Regulation, or EU GDPR, and the UK General Data Protection Regulation, or UK GDPR, which, together with the EU GDPR, is referred to as the GDPR. The GDPR imposes stringent requirements for controllers and processors of personal data of persons in the EU and U.K., including, for example, ensuring an appropriate legal basis or condition applies to the processing of personal data, more robust disclosures to individuals and a strengthened individual data rights regime, shortened timelines for data breach notifications, limitations on retention of information, increased requirements pertaining to special categories of data, such as health data, and additional obligations when we contract with third-party processors in connection with the processing of the personal data. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data out of the EU and U.K. to the United States and other third countries. In addition, the GDPR provides that EU member states may make their own further laws and

regulations limiting the processing of personal data, including genetic, biometric or health data. Failure to comply with the requirements of the GDPR may result in fines of up to €20,000,000 (or £17.5 million in the U.K.) or up to 4% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher, and other administrative penalties. GDPR regulations may impose additional responsibility and liability in relation to the personal data that we process and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms to ensure compliance with the new data protection rules. For additional information on these regimes, see “Government Regulation—Privacy and data protection laws and regulations”. Compliance with these and any other applicable privacy and data security laws and regulations is a rigorous and time-intensive process, and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms to ensure compliance, and despite those efforts, if we fail to comply with any such laws or regulations, we may face significant fines and penalties that could adversely affect our reputation, business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our employees, principal investigators, CROs and consultants may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including non-compliance with regulatory standards and requirements and insider trading laws.

We are exposed to the risk that our employees, principal investigators, CROs and consultants may engage in fraudulent conduct or other illegal activity. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct or disclosure of unauthorized activities to us that violate the regulations of the FDA and other regulatory authorities, including those laws requiring the reporting of true, complete and accurate information to such authorities; healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations in the U.S. and abroad; or laws that require the reporting of financial information or data accurately. In particular, sales, marketing, patient support and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Other activities subject to these laws include the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials or creating fraudulent data in our preclinical studies or clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and cause serious harm to our reputation. We have adopted a code of conduct applicable to all of our employees, but it is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct by employees and other third parties, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. Additionally, we are subject to the risk that a person could allege such fraud or other misconduct, even if none occurred. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. 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 regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant criminal, civil and administrative sanctions including monetary penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, reputational harm, exclusion from participation in government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

The risk of our 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 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 robust and expandable

systems to comply with multiple jurisdictions with different compliance and/or reporting requirements increases the possibility that a healthcare company may run afoul of one or more of the requirements.

Risks related to our common stock

The price of our common stock may be volatile and fluctuate substantially, which could result in substantial losses for purchasers of our common stock.

Our stock price is likely to be volatile. The stock market in general and the market for biopharmaceutical companies in particular have experienced extreme volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. As a result of this volatility, purchasers of our common stock could incur substantial losses. The market price for our common stock may be influenced by many factors, including:

The stock market in general, and the Nasdaq Global Select Market and biopharmaceutical companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies, which has resulted in decreased stock prices for many companies notwithstanding the lack of a fundamental change in their underlying business models or prospects. Broad market and industry factors, including potentially worsening economic conditions and other adverse effects or developments relating to geopolitical events or public health crises, may negatively affect the market price of our common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance. The realization of any of the above risks or any of a broad range of other risks, including those described in this section, could have a significant and material adverse impact on the market price of our common stock.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or current or future product candidates.

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenues, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of private and public equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, such as our collaboration with Roche, strategic alliances and marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements. We do not currently have any committed external source of funds. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of common stock or securities convertible or exchangeable into common stock, our stockholders’ ownership interests will be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that materially adversely affect their rights as a common stockholder. Debt financing, if available, would increase our

fixed payment obligations and may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends.

If we raise funds through additional collaborations, strategic alliances or marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our intellectual property, future revenue streams, discovery programs or current or future product candidates or to grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financings when needed, we may be required to delay, scale back or discontinue the development and commercialization of one or more of our product candidates, delay our pursuit of potential in-licenses or acquisitions or grant rights to develop and market current or future product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

If securities analysts do not publish research or reports about our business or if they publish negative evaluations of our stock, the price of our stock could decline.

The trading market for our common stock will rely in part on the research and reports that industry or financial analysts publish about us or our business. We do not currently have and may never obtain research coverage by industry or financial analysts. If no or few analysts commence coverage of us, the trading price of our stock would likely decrease. In the event we do have research analyst coverage, we will not have any control over the analysts or the content and opinions included in their reports. Additionally, if one or more of the analysts covering our business downgrade their evaluations of our stock, the price of our stock could decline. If one or more of these analysts cease to cover our stock, we could lose visibility in the market for our stock, which in turn could cause our stock price to decline.

We incur increased costs as a result of operating as a public company, and our management is required to devote substantial time to new compliance initiatives.

As a public company, we incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses. We are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, which require, among other things, that we file with the SEC annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to our business and financial condition. In addition, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended, or Sarbanes-Oxley Act, as well as rules subsequently adopted by the SEC and The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC to implement provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, impose significant requirements on public companies, including requiring establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and changes in corporate governance practices. Further, in July 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, or the Dodd-Frank Act, was enacted. There are significant corporate governance and executive compensation related provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act that require the SEC to adopt additional rules and regulations in these areas, such as “say on pay” and proxy access. Emerging growth companies may implement many of these requirements over a longer period and up to five years from the completion of an initial public offering. We intend to take advantage of these extended transition periods, but cannot guarantee that we will not be required to implement these requirements sooner than budgeted or planned and thereby incur unexpected expenses. Stockholder activism, the current political environment and the current high level of government intervention and regulatory reform may lead to substantial new regulations and disclosure obligations, which may lead to additional compliance costs and impact the manner in which we operate our business in ways we cannot currently anticipate.

The rules and regulations applicable to public companies substantially increase our legal and financial compliance costs and make some activities more time-consuming and costly. If these requirements divert the attention of our management and personnel from other business concerns, they could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. The increased costs will decrease our net income or increase our net loss and may require us to reduce costs in other areas of our business or increase the prices of our products or services. We cannot predict or estimate the amount or timing of additional costs we may incur to respond to these requirements. The impact of these requirements could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified persons to serve on our board of directors, our board committees or as executive officers.

Anti-takeover provisions under our charter documents and Delaware law could delay or prevent a change of control, which could limit the market price of our common stock and may prevent or frustrate attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management.

Our fourth amended and restated certificate of incorporation, as amended, and our second amended and restated bylaws contain provisions that could delay or prevent a change of control of our company or changes in our board of directors that our stockholders might consider favorable. Some of these provisions include:

In addition, because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporate Law, or DGCL, which may prohibit certain business combinations with stockholders owning 15% or more of our outstanding voting stock. These antitakeover provisions and other provisions in our fourth amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws could make it more difficult for stockholders or potential acquirers to obtain control of our board of directors or initiate actions that are opposed by the then-current board of directors and could also delay or impede a merger, tender offer or proxy contest involving our company. These provisions could also discourage proxy contests and make it more difficult for you and other stockholders to elect directors of your choosing or cause us to take other corporate actions you desire. Any delay or prevention of a change of control transaction or changes in our board of directors could cause the market price of our common stock to decline.

Our amended and restated bylaws designate certain courts as the sole and exclusive forum for certain types of actions and proceedings that may be initiated by our stockholders, which could limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or our directors, officers, or employees.

Pursuant to our amended and restated bylaws, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware is the sole and exclusive forum for state law claims for: (i) any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf; (ii) any action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any of our directors, officers or other employees to us or our stockholders; (iii) any action asserting a claim arising pursuant to any provision of the DGCL, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation or our amended and restated bylaws (including the interpretation, application or validity thereof); or (iv) any action asserting a claim governed by the internal affairs doctrine, or the Delaware Forum Provision. The Delaware Forum Provision will not apply to any causes of action arising under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act. Our amended and restated bylaws further provide that unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the federal district courts of the United States of America are the sole and exclusive forum for resolving any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act, or the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, or the Federal Forum Provision. In addition, our amended and restated bylaws provide that any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in shares of our common stock is deemed to have notice of and consented to the foregoing Delaware Forum Provision and Federal Forum Provision; provided, however, that stockholders cannot and will not be deemed to have waived our compliance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder.

The Delaware Forum Provision and the Federal Forum Provision may impose additional litigation costs on stockholders in pursuing any such claims. Additionally, these forum selection clauses may limit our stockholders’ ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that they find favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers or employees, which may discourage the filing of lawsuits against us and our directors, officers and employees, even though an action, if successful, might benefit our stockholders. While the Delaware Supreme Court and other states have upheld the validity of federal forum selection provisions purporting to require claims under the Securities Act be brought in federal, there is uncertainty as to whether other courts will enforce our Federal Forum Provision. If the Federal Forum Provision is found to be unenforceable, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such matters. The Federal Forum Provision may also impose additional litigation costs on us and/or

our stockholders who assert that the provision is invalid or unenforceable. The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware or the federal district courts of United States of America may also reach different judgments or results than would other courts, including courts where a stockholder considering an action may be located or would otherwise choose to bring the action, and such judgments may be more or less favorable to us than our stockholders.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market could cause our stock price to fall.

If our existing stockholders sell, or indicate an intention to sell, substantial amounts of our common stock in the public market, the market price of our common stock could decline. Based upon the number of shares of common stock, on an as-converted basis, outstanding as of March 11, 2024, we have outstanding a total of 50,154,073 shares of common stock.

We entered into an Open Market Sale Agreement with Jefferies to provide for the offering, issuance and sale of up to an aggregate amount of $100.0 million of our common stock from time to time in “at-the-market” offerings under our registration statement on Form S-3 (File No. 333-266003), or the 2022 Shelf Registration Statement, and subject to the limitations thereof. We will pay to the Jefferies cash commissions of up to 3.0 percent of the aggregate gross proceeds of sales of common stock under the Open Market Sale Agreement. Sales of common stock, debt securities or other equity securities by us may represent a significant percentage of our common stock currently outstanding. If we sell, or the market perceives that we intend to sell, substantial amounts of our common stock under the 2022 Shelf Registration Statement or otherwise, the market price of our common stock could decline significantly.

In addition, 8,655,556 shares of common stock that are either subject to outstanding options or reserved for future issuance under our equity incentive plans will become eligible for sale in the public market to the extent permitted by the provisions of various vesting schedules. If these additional shares of common stock are sold, or if it is perceived that they will be sold, in the public market, the market price of our common stock could decline.

We are an emerging growth company and a smaller reporting company, and we cannot be certain if the reduced reporting requirements applicable to emerging growth companies and smaller reporting companies will make our common stock less attractive to investors.

We are an emerging growth company, as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, or JOBS Act, enacted in April 2012. For as long as we continue to be an emerging growth company, we may take advantage of exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies, including not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements, and exemptions from the requirements of holding nonbinding advisory votes on executive compensation and stockholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. We could be an emerging growth company for up to five years following the year in which we completed our IPO, although circumstances could cause us to lose that status earlier. We will remain an emerging growth company until the earlier of (i) the last day of the fiscal year (a) following the fifth anniversary of the closing of our IPO, (b) in which we have total annual gross revenue of at least $1.235 billion, or (c) in which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer, which requires the market value of our common stock that is held by non-affiliates to exceed $700 million as of the prior June 30th, and (ii) the date on which we have issued more than $1 billion in non-convertible debt during the prior three-year period.

Under the JOBS Act, emerging growth companies can also delay adopting new or revised accounting standards until such time as those standards apply to private companies. We have elected to not “opt out” of this exemption from complying with new or revised accounting standards and, therefore, we will adopt new or revised accounting standards at the time private companies adopt the new or revised accounting standard and will do so until such time that we either: (i) irrevocably elect to “opt out” of such extended transition period or (ii) no longer qualify as an emerging growth company.

Even after we no longer qualify as an emerging growth company, we may still qualify as a “smaller reporting company,” which would allow us to continue to take advantage of many of the same exemptions from disclosure requirements, including not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements. We cannot predict if investors will find our common stock less attractive because we may rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock price may be more volatile.

Because we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our capital stock in the foreseeable future, capital appreciation, if any, will be the sole source of gain for our stockholders.

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our capital stock. We currently intend to retain all of our future earnings, if any, to finance the growth and development of our business. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our common stock will be the sole source of gain for our stockholders for the foreseeable future.

We are at risk of securities class action litigation.

Historically, securities class action litigation has often been brought against a company following a decline in the market price of its securities. This risk is especially relevant for us because biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies have experienced significant stock price volatility in recent years. If we were to be sued, it could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s attention and resources, which could harm our business.

If our estimates or judgments relating to our critical accounting policies are based on assumptions that change or prove to be incorrect, our operating results could fall below our publicly announced guidance or the expectations of securities analysts and investors, resulting in a decline in the market price of our common stock.

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in our consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets, liabilities, equity, revenue and expenses that are not readily apparent from other sources. If our assumptions change or if actual circumstances differ from our assumptions, our operating results may be adversely affected and could fall below our publicly announced guidance or the expectations of securities analysts and investors, resulting in a decline in the market price of our common stock.

General risk factors

Our executive officers, directors, principal stockholders and their affiliates exercise significant influence over our company, which will limit our stockholders’ ability to influence corporate matters and could delay or prevent a change in corporate control.

The holdings of our executive officers, directors, principal stockholders and their affiliates represents beneficial ownership, in the aggregate, own a significant percentage of our outstanding common stock. In addition, two of our directors, including our chief executive officer, are affiliated with our principal stockholders. As a result, these stockholders, if they act together, are able to influence our management and affairs and the outcome of matters submitted to our stockholders for approval, including the election of directors and any merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets. These stockholders may have interests with respect to their common stock that are different from our other stockholders. The concentration of voting power among these stockholders may have an adverse effect on the price of our common stock. In addition, this concentration of ownership might adversely affect the market price of our common stock by:

Adverse developments affecting the financial services industry, such as actual events or concerns involving liquidity, defaults or non-performance by financial institutions or transactional counterparties, could adversely affect our current and projected business operations and its financial condition and results of operations.

Adverse developments that affect financial institutions, such as events involving liquidity that are rumored or actual, have in the past and may in the future lead to market-wide liquidity problems. For example, on March 10, 2023, Silicon Valley Bank was closed by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, which appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as receiver. Although we assess our banking relationships as we believe necessary or appropriate, our access to funding sources and other credit arrangements in amounts adequate to finance or capitalize our current and projected future business operations could be significantly impaired by factors that us, the financial institutions with which we have credit agreements or arrangements directly, or the financial services industry or economy in general. These factors could include, among others, events such as liquidity constraints or failures, the ability to perform obligations under various types of financial,

credit or liquidity agreements or arrangements, disruptions or instability in the financial services industry or financial markets, or concerns or negative expectations about the prospects for companies in the financial services industry.

Public health crises, such as a pandemic, epidemic or outbreak of other highly infectious or contagious diseases, could seriously harm our research, development and potential future commercialization efforts, increase our costs and expenses and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Public health crises, such as a pandemic, epidemic or outbreak of other highly infectious or contagious diseases, could adversely impact our business, the business operations of third parties on whom we rely and our ongoing or planned research and development activities. Additionally, timely enrollment in our ongoing and planned clinical trials is dependent upon clinical trial sites which may be adversely affected by global health concerns. Public health crises could result in increased adverse events and deaths in our clinical trials. Some factors from public health crises that could delay or otherwise adversely affect enrollment in the clinical trials of our product candidates, as well as our business generally, include:

Any of these factors, and other factors related to any such disruptions that are unforeseen, could have a material adverse effect on our business and our results of operations and financial condition. Further, uncertainty around these and related issues could lead to adverse effects on the economy of the United States and other economies, which could impact our ability to raise the necessary capital needed to develop and commercialize our product candidates.

If we fail to establish and maintain proper and effective internal control over financial reporting, our operating results and our ability to operate our business could be harmed.

Ensuring that we have adequate internal financial and accounting controls and procedures in place so that we can produce accurate financial statements on a timely basis is a costly and time-consuming effort that needs to be re-evaluated frequently. Our internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or Section 404, we are required to furnish a report by our management on our internal control over financial reporting. However, while we remain an “emerging growth company,” we will not be required to include an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. To achieve compliance with Section 404 within the prescribed period, we are and will be engaged in a process to document and evaluate our internal control over financial reporting, which is both costly and challenging. In this regard, we need to continue to dedicate internal resources, potentially engage outside consultants, and adopt a detailed work plan to assess and document the adequacy of internal control over financial reporting, continue

steps to improve control processes as appropriate, validate through testing that controls are functioning as documented, and implement a continuous reporting and improvement process for internal control over financial reporting. Despite our efforts, there is a risk that neither we nor our independent registered public accounting firm will be able to conclude within the prescribed timeframe that our internal control over financial reporting is effective as required by Section 404. This could result in an adverse reaction in the financial markets due to a loss of confidence in the reliability of our financial statements.

Implementing any appropriate changes to our internal controls may distract our officers and employees, entail substantial costs to modify our existing processes, and take significant time to complete. These changes may not, however, be effective in maintaining the adequacy of our internal controls, and any failure to maintain that adequacy, or consequent inability to produce accurate financial statements on a timely basis, could increase our operating costs and harm our business. In addition, investors’ perceptions that our internal controls are inadequate or that we are unable to produce accurate financial statements on a timely basis may harm our stock price and make it more difficult for us to effectively market and sell any of our present or future product candidates that may receive regulatory approval.

Our disclosure controls and procedures may not prevent or detect all errors or acts of fraud.

We are subject to certain reporting requirements of the Exchange Act. Our disclosure controls and procedures are designed to reasonably assure that information required to be disclosed by us in reports we file or submit under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to management, recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the rules and forms of the SEC. We believe that any disclosure controls and procedures or internal controls and procedures, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. These inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in decision-making can be faulty, and that breakdowns can occur because of simple error or mistake. Additionally, controls can be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more people or by an unauthorized override of the controls. Accordingly, because of the inherent limitations in our control system, misstatements or insufficient disclosures due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected.

We or the third parties upon whom we depend may be adversely affected by natural disasters and our business continuity and disaster recovery plans may not adequately protect us from a serious disaster.

Natural disasters could severely disrupt our operations and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. If a natural disaster, power outage or other event occurred that prevented us from using all or a significant portion of our headquarters, that damaged critical infrastructure, such as the manufacturing facilities on which we rely, or that otherwise disrupted operations, it may be difficult or, in certain cases, impossible for us to continue our business for a substantial period of time. The disaster recovery and business continuity plans we have in place may prove inadequate in the event of a serious disaster or similar event. We may incur substantial expenses as a result of the limited nature of our disaster recovery and business continuity plans, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. For example, following Hurricane Maria, shortages in production and delays in a number of medical supplies produced in Puerto Rico resulted, and any similar interruption due to a natural disaster affecting us or any of our third-party manufacturers could materially delay our operations.

Unstable market and economic conditions may have serious adverse consequences on our business, financial condition and stock price.

As widely reported, global credit and financial markets have experienced extreme volatility and disruptions in the past several years, declines in consumer confidence, concerns about declines in economic growth, increases in the rate of inflation and uncertainty about economic stability, including in connection with actions undertaken by the U.S. Federal Reserve Board to address inflation and geopolitical conflicts. There can be no assurance that further volatility in credit and financial markets and confidence in economic conditions will not occur. Our general business strategy may be adversely affected by any such economic downturn, volatile business environment or continued unpredictable and unstable market conditions. If the current equity and credit markets continue to be volatile it may make any necessary debt or equity financing more difficult, more costly, and more dilutive. Furthermore, our stock price may decline due in part to the volatility of the stock market and a general economic downturn.

Failure to secure any necessary financing in a timely manner and on favorable terms could have a material adverse effect on our growth strategy, financial performance and stock price and could require us to delay, scale back or discontinue the development and commercialization of one or more of our product candidates or delay

our pursuit of potential in-licenses or acquisitions. In addition, there is a risk that one or more of our current service providers, manufacturers and other partners may not survive these difficult economic times, which could directly affect our ability to attain our operating goals on schedule and on budget.

Business disruptions could seriously harm our future revenue and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses.

Our operations, and those of our contractors and consultants, could be subject to earthquakes, power shortages, telecommunications failures, water shortages, floods, hurricanes, typhoons, fires, extreme weather conditions, medical epidemics, pandemics and other natural or man-made disasters or business interruptions, for which we are predominantly self-insured. The occurrence of any of these business disruptions could seriously harm our operations and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses. We rely on third-party manufacturers to produce our product candidates. Our ability to obtain clinical supplies of our product candidates could be disrupted if the operations of these suppliers are affected by a man-made or natural disaster or other business interruption.

Our internal computer systems, or those of our third-party CROs or other contractors or consultants, may fail or suffer from cybersecurity incidents or breaches, which could result in a material disruption of our current or future product candidates’ development programs.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems and those of our third-party CROs and other contractors and consultants are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. While we have not experienced any such system failure, accident, or cybersecurity incident to date, if such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our programs. For example, the loss of data from preclinical studies or clinical trials for our current or future product candidates could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or cybersecurity incident results in a loss of or damage to our data or applications, other data or applications relating to our technology or current or future product candidates, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liabilities and the further development of our current or future product candidates could be delayed.

Our ability to utilize our net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes to offset future taxable income may be subject to certain limitations.

As of December 31, 2023, we had a federal net operating loss carryforwards of $0.5 million which will begin to expire in various amounts in 2039 (other than federal net operating loss carryforwards arising in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2019, which are not subject to expiration). As of December 31, 2023, we had foreign net operating loss carryforwards of $288.0 million that begin to expire in 2026. These net operating loss and tax credit carryforwards could expire unused and be unavailable to offset future income tax liabilities. In addition, in general, under Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, a corporation that undergoes an “ownership change” is subject to limitations on its ability to utilize its pre-change net operating losses or tax credits, or NOLs or credits, to offset future taxable income or taxes. For these purposes, an ownership change generally occurs where the aggregate stock ownership of one or more stockholders or groups of stockholders who owns at least 5% of a corporation’s stock increases its ownership by more than 50 percentage points over its lowest ownership percentage within a specified testing period.

Our existing NOLs or credits may be subject to limitations arising from previous ownership changes, and our ability to utilize NOLs or credits could be further limited by Sections 382 and 383 of the Code. In addition, future changes in our stock ownership, many of which are outside of our control, could result in an ownership change under Sections 382 and 383 of the Code. Our NOLs or credits may also be impaired under state law. Accordingly, we may not be able to utilize a material portion of our NOLs or credits.

Furthermore, our ability to utilize our NOLs or credits is conditioned upon our attaining profitability and generating U. S. federal and state taxable income. As described above under “Risk factors—Risks related to our financial position and capital needs,” we have incurred significant net losses since our inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future; and therefore, we do not know whether or when we will generate the U.S. federal or state taxable income necessary to utilize our NOL or credit carryforwards that are subject to limitation by Sections 382 and 383 of the Code.

Changes in tax law may adversely affect us or our investors.

The rules dealing with U.S. federal, state and local income taxation are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process and by the Internal Revenue Service, or IRS, and the U.S. Treasury Department. Changes to tax laws (which changes may have retroactive application) could adversely affect us or holders of our common stock. In recent years, many changes have been made and changes are likely to continue to occur in the future. For example, under Section 174 of the code, in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021, expenses that are incurred for research and development in the U.S. are capitalized and amortized, which may have an adverse effect on our cash flow. In addition, it is unclear how these U.S. federal income tax changes will affect state and local taxation.

It cannot be predicted whether, when, in what form, or with what effective dates, new tax laws may be enacted, or regulations and rulings may be enacted, promulgated or issued under existing or new tax laws, which could result in an increase in our or our shareholders’ tax liability or require changes in the manner in which we operate in order to minimize or mitigate any adverse effects of changes in tax law or in the interpretation thereof.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

Not applicable.

Item 1C. Cybersecurity

Cybersecurity Risk Management and Strategy

We have implemented a cybersecurity risk management program, in accordance with our risk profile and business size, that is designed to detect, identify, assess, and respond to current and emerging cybersecurity threats. Our cybersecurity risk management program is supported by third-party information technologies and vendors, including a managed services provider that assists us with, among other things, information technology system monitoring, detection, and response support services. We also leverage third-party information technology service providers to monitor and evaluate our cybersecurity posture through vulnerability scans, penetration tests, and cybersecurity risk reviews and assessments. Our cybersecurity risk assessments are informed by industry standards and frameworks and incorporate elements of the same, including elements of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) cybersecurity framework.

We have adopted an incident response plan designed to coordinate the steps to identify, contain, eradicate, and recover from cybersecurity incidents. We also have a process for newly-hired employees to participate in security awareness training, and we conduct periodic phishing email simulations . We also have a process to review certain third-party information technology service providers and vendors, including through contractual requirements and proactive threat intelligence monitoring, as appropriate.

To date, we have not identified any cybersecurity incidents or threats that have materially affected us or are reasonably likely to materially affect us, including our business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition, however, like other companies in our industry, we and our third-party information technology service providers and vendors have from time to time experienced threats that could affect our information or systems. For more information, please refer to Item 1A, “Risk Factors,” in this annual report on Form 10-K.

Governance

Our Head of Information Technology (“IT”), with the support of our third-party information technology service providers and a team of IT professionals, is responsible for the strategic leadership and day-to-day management of our cybersecurity program. The individual serving as Head of IT has more than twenty-five years of experience in information technology and information security.

Our Board of Directors has delegated oversight of our cybersecurity risk management program to our Audit Committee, per the Audit Committee Charter. Our Head of IT provides quarterly updates to the Audit Committee regarding our cybersecurity risk management program, including information about cybersecurity risk management governance, and provides the Audit Committee with status updates on various projects intended to enhance the overall cybersecurity posture of the Company, as applicable.

Item 2. Properties

Our principal offices occupy approximately 63,327 square feet of office and laboratory space at 321 Harrison Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts, which has served as our new headquarters since the second quarter of 2023. Our obligation to pay rent pursuant to the lease began on December 21, 2022. The initial term of the lease is one hundred twenty-eight (128) months following April 1, 2022. The annual base rent under the lease is $95.00 per square foot for the first year, which is subject to scheduled annual increases of 3%, plus certain costs, operating expenses and property management fees. We have the option to extend the lease once for five (5)-years upon notice to the Landlord at least one (1) year prior to the end of the then-current term. We also have the option to sublet the Premises on the terms and conditions set forth in the lease.

We have an additional location used for office and lab space that occupies approximately 21,422 square feet located in Basel-City, Switzerland. In April 2023, the Company amended the lease to increase the square footage of the office and lab space to 44,685 square feet and extended the lease term through June 2027.

We believe that our facilities are adequate for our current needs and for the foreseeable future. To meet the future needs of our business, we may lease additional or alternate space. We believe that suitable additional or substitute space at commercially reasonable terms will be available as needed to accommodate any future expansion of our operations.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

From time to time, we may become subject to various legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of our business activities. Although the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, as of March 14, 2024, we do not believe we are party to any claim or litigation the outcome of which, if determined adversely to us, would individually or in the aggregate be reasonably expected to have a material adverse effect on our business. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures

Not Applicable.

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Market information

Our common stock began trading on The Nasdaq Global Select Market on June 24, 2021, under the symbol “GLUE”. Prior to that time, there was no public market for our common stock.

Holders of record

As of March 11, 2024, we had approximately 20 holders of record for our common stock. Certain shares are held in “street” name and accordingly, the number of beneficial owners of such shares is not known or included in the foregoing number. This number of holders of record also does not include stockholders whose shares may be held in trust by other entities.

Dividends

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our capital stock. We anticipate that we will retain all available funds and any future earnings, if any, for use in the operation of our business and do not anticipate paying cash dividends in the foreseeable future.

Stock performance graph

We are a smaller reporting company, as defined by Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange act, and are not required to provide a performance graph.

Recent sales of unregistered equity securities

None.

Issuer purchaser of equity securities

We did not purchase any of our registered equity securities during the period covered by this Annual Report.

Item 6. [Reserved]

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

You should read the following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations together with our consolidated financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. This discussion contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties, including those described in the section titled “Special Note Regarding Forward Looking Statements.” Our actual results and the timing of selected events could differ materially from those discussed below. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include, but are not limited to, those identified below and those set forth under the section titled “Risk Factors” included elsewhere in this Annual Report.

Overview

We are a biotechnology company developing a portfolio of novel and proprietary MGDs. MGDs are small molecule drugs that employ the body’s natural protein destruction mechanisms to selectively degrade therapeutically relevant proteins. MGDs work by inducing the engagement of defined surfaces identified on target proteins by an E3 ligase, such as cereblon. We have developed a proprietary and industry-leading protein degradation platform, called QuEENTM, to enable our unique, target-centric, MGD discovery and development and our rational design of MGD products. We believe our small molecule MGDs may give us significant advantages over existing therapeutic modalities, including other protein degradation approaches. We prioritize our product development on therapeutic targets backed by strong biological and genetic rationale with the goal of discovering and developing novel medicines.

Monte Rosa Therapeutics AG, a Swiss operating company, was incorporated under the laws of Switzerland in April 2018. Monte Rosa Therapeutics, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware in November 2019. In 2020, Monte Rosa Therapeutics, Inc. and Monte Rosa Therapeutics AG, entities under common control since the incorporation of Monte Rosa Therapeutics, Inc., consummated a contribution and exchange agreement, or the Contribution and Exchange, whereby Monte Rosa Therapeutics, Inc. acquired the net assets and shareholdings of Monte Rosa Therapeutics AG via a one-for-one exchange of equity between Monte Rosa Therapeutics, Inc. and the shareholders of Monte Rosa Therapeutics AG in a common control reorganization. We are headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts with research operations in both Boston and Basel, Switzerland. To date, we have been financed primarily through the issuance of convertible promissory notes, convertible preferred stock, and common stock.

Liquidity

To date, we have financed our operations primarily through the issuance and sale of convertible promissory notes and our convertible preferred stock to outside investors in private equity financings, sales of our common stock, and through our collaboration with Roche. From our inception through the date hereof, we raised an aggregate of $524.8 million of gross proceeds from such transactions. Since inception, we have had significant operating losses. Our primary use of cash is to fund operating expenses, which consist primarily of research and development expenditures and, to a lesser extent, general and administrative expenditures. Our net loss was $135.4 million and $108.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively. As of December 31, 2023 we had an accumulated deficit of $365.9 million and $237.0 million of cash, cash equivalents, restricted cash, and marketable securities.

Impact of global economic and political developments

The development of our product candidates could be disrupted and materially adversely affected in the future by global economic or political developments. In addition, economic uncertainty in global markets caused by political instability and conflict, and economic challenges caused by global pandemics or other public health events, may lead to market disruptions, including significant volatility in commodity prices, credit and capital market instability and supply chain interruptions. Our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected by negative impacts on the global economy and capital markets resulting from these global economic conditions, particularly if such conditions are prolonged or worsen.

Components of operating results

Research and development expenses

Our research and development expenses include:

Most of our research and development expenses have been related to the development of our QuEENTM platform and advancement of our GSPT1 program, advancement of our disclosed and undisclosed programs including for CDK2, NEK7, and VAV1. We have not reported program costs since our inception because we have not historically tracked or recorded our research and development expenses on a program-by-program basis. We use our personnel and infrastructure resources across the breadth of our research and development activities, which are directed toward identifying and developing product candidates.

We expense all research and development costs in the periods in which they are incurred. Costs for certain research and development activities are recognized based on an evaluation of the progress to completion of specific tasks using information and data provided to us by our vendors and third-party service providers.

We expect our research and development expenses to increase substantially for the foreseeable future as we continue to invest in research and development activities related to developing our product candidates, including investments in manufacturing, as we advance our programs and conduct clinical trials. The process of conducting the necessary clinical research to obtain regulatory approval is costly and time-consuming, and the successful development of our product candidates is highly uncertain. As a result, we are unable to determine the duration and completion costs of our research and development projects, the costs of related clinical development costs or when and to what extent we will generate revenue from the commercialization and sale of any of our product candidates.

General and administrative expenses

Our general and administrative expenses consist primarily of personnel costs and other expenses for outside professional services, including legal fees relating to patent and corporate matters, professional fees for accounting, auditing, tax and administrative consulting services, insurance costs and other operating costs. We expect our general and administrative expenses to increase over the next several years to support our continued research and development activities, manufacturing activities, and the potential commercialization of our product candidates and development of commercial infrastructure. We also anticipate our general and administrative costs will increase and with respect to the hiring of additional personnel, fees to outside consultants, lawyers and accountants, and increased costs associated with being a public company, such as expenses related to services associated with maintaining compliance with Nasdaq listing rules and SEC reporting requirements, insurance and investor relations costs.

Non-operating income and (expense)

Our non-operating income and (expense) includes (i) interest earned on our investments, including principally U.S. government-backed money-market funds; (ii) gains and losses on transactions of our Swiss subsidiary denominated in currencies other than the U.S. Dollar; (iii) proceeds from the sale of fixed assets; and (iv) realized losses on the sale of marketable securities.

Results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022

The following sets forth our results of operations:

Research and development expenses

Research and development expenses were comprised of:

As of December 31, 2023 and December 31, 2022, respectively, we had 105 and 100 employees engaged in research and development activities in our facilities in the U.S. and Switzerland.

These increases were driven by the successful achievement of key milestones in our R&D organization, including the continuation of the MRT-2359 clinical study, the preparation of MRT-6160 to enter the clinic, the progression of our preclinical pipeline, and the continued development of the Company’s QuEEN™ discovery engine, and reflect increased personnel expense and external R&D costs including laboratory-related expenses to achieve these milestones. The increase for the year ended December 31, 2023 as compared to 2022 was primarily due to the expansion of research and development activities in the United States and Switzerland including increased headcount and facilities as well as corresponding increases in laboratory related expenses. Research and development expenses included non-cash stock-based compensation of $8.9 million and $5.6 million for the years end December 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively.

General and administrative expenses

General and administrative expenses to support our business activities were comprised of:

As of December 31, 2023 and December 31, 2022, respectively, we had 28 and 23 employees engaged in general and administrative activities principally in our U.S. facility. Personnel and professional service costs increased in the year ended December 31, 2023, as compared to 2022 as a result of increased headcount and expenses in support of our growth and operations as a public company. General and administrative expenses included non-cash stock-based compensation of $7.7 million and $6.1 million for the years end December 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively.

Other expenses, net

Other income (expense), net was comprised of:

The increase in interest income for the year ended December 31, 2023 is principally attributable to higher interest rates on marketable securities.

Foreign exchange losses on transactions of our Swiss subsidiary denominated in currency other than the U.S. dollar increased in the year ended December 31, 2023 as to compared to the gain for year ended December 31, 2022, principally due to the weakening of the U.S Dollar with respect to, principally, the Swiss Franc.

Liquidity and capital resources

Overview

Due to our significant research and development expenditures, we have generated operating losses since our inception. We have funded our operations primarily through the sale of convertible promissory notes, convertible preferred stock, public offerings of our common stock and through our collaboration with Roche.

On October 30, 2023, the Company sold in a registered direct offering pursuant to a securities purchase agreement pre-funded warrants to purchase 10,000,400 shares of the Company’s common stock to an accredited investor at a purchase price of $2.4999 per pre-funded warrant for aggregate gross proceeds of $25.0 million, before paying estimated offering expenses. The pre-funded warrants are immediately exercisable at an exercise price of $0.0001 per share, and may be exercised at any time until the pre-funded warrants are exercised in full.

As of December 31, 2023, we had cash, cash equivalents, restricted cash, and marketable securities, of $237.0 million and an accumulated deficit of $365.9 million. We believe that our cash, cash equivalents, restricted cash, and marketable securities will be sufficient to fund our planned operations for at least one year past the issuance date of these financial statements.

Cash flows

The following table summarizes our cash flows for the periods indicated: