RISK FACTORS

Investing in shares of our common stock involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the following risks and uncertainties, together with all of the other information contained in this prospectus, including our financial statements and related notes, before making an investment decision. The risks described below are not the only ones facing us. Many of the following risks and uncertainties are, and will be, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and any worsening of the global business and economic environment as a result. The occurrence of any of the following risks, or of additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently believe to be immaterial, could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects, and reputation. In such case, the trading price of shares of our common stock could decline, and you may lose all or part of your investment. This prospectus also contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in the forward-looking statements as a result of a number of factors, including the risks described below. See “Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements.”

Risks Relating to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital

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

We have incurred significant net operating losses each year since our inception. For the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2020, we incurred net operating losses of $34.3 million and $36.1 million, respectively, and for the three months ended March 31, 2020 and 2021, we incurred net operating losses of $9.8 million and $13.2 million, respectively. As of March 31, 2021, we had an accumulated deficit of $44.0 million. In addition, we have not commercialized any products and have never generated any revenue from product sales. We have devoted almost all of our financial resources to research and development, including our preclinical development activities.

We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses over the next several years and for the foreseeable future as we seek to advance product candidates through preclinical and clinical development, expand our research and development activities, develop new product candidates, complete preclinical studies and clinical trials, seek regulatory approval and, if we receive approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, or foreign regulatory authorities, commercialize our products. Furthermore, the costs of advancing product candidates into each succeeding clinical phase tend to increase substantially over time. The total costs to advance any of our product candidates to marketing approval in even a single jurisdiction is substantial. Our prior losses, combined with expected future losses, will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ deficit and working capital. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if and as we:

16

Because of these risks, we are unable to predict the extent of any future losses or when we will become profitable, if at all. Even if we do become profitable, we may not be able to sustain or increase our profitability on a quarterly or annual basis.

Even if this offering is successful, we will need substantial additional financing to develop our product candidates and implement our operating plans. If we fail to obtain additional financing, we may be delayed or unable to complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates.

Even after the consummation of this offering, we will continue to need additional capital beyond the proceeds of this offering, which we may raise through equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations and strategic alliances, licensing arrangements, or other sources. Additional sources of financing might not be available on favorable terms, if at all. If we do not succeed in raising additional funds on acceptable terms, we might be unable to complete the development or obtain marketing approval of any of our product candidates, and we could be forced to delay or discontinue product development and commercialization.

We expect to spend a substantial amount of capital in the research, development, and manufacture of our product candidates. We expect our expenses to increase in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we initiate clinical trials for, and seek marketing approval of, our 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 to the extent that we do not obtain commercialization partners who will bear the costs for such activities. We may also need to raise additional funds sooner if we choose to pursue additional indications or markets for our product candidates or otherwise expand more rapidly than we presently anticipate. Furthermore, upon the closing of this offering, we expect to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on attractive terms, we will be forced to delay, reduce, or eliminate certain of our research and development programs or future commercialization efforts. Because our allogeneic cell therapy product candidates are based on new technologies, they require extensive research and development and have substantial manufacturing costs. In addition, clinical costs to treat cancer patients with our product candidates, including treatment of any potential side effects that may arise, will be significant.

17

As of December 31, 2020 and March 31, 2021, we had cash and cash equivalents of $16.0 million and $145.9 million, respectively. In March 2021, we received a $30.0 million upfront cash payment under our Collaboration and License Agreement with AbbVie Manufacturing Management Unlimited Company, or AbbVie, and we received net proceeds of $108.8 million from our Series C convertible preferred stock financing. We expect our cash and cash equivalents to be sufficient to fund our current operating plan through at least the next 12 months from the date the interim condensed consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus are issued. Our expectation is based on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect.

Our future capital requirements will depend on, and could increase significantly as a result of, many factors, including:

18

Changing circumstances may cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to spend more money than expected because of circumstances beyond our control. We may also need to raise additional capital sooner if we choose to expand programs, personnel, and facilities more rapidly than planned. In any event, we will require additional capital for the further research, development, and commercialization of our product candidates, including potentially establishing our own internal manufacturing capabilities. Any additional fundraising efforts may divert our management from their day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to research, develop, and commercialize our product candidates.

We cannot be certain that additional funding will be available when needed and on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to obtain funding on a timely basis, we may be required to significantly curtail, delay, or discontinue one or more of our product candidate preclinical studies, clinical trials, or development and commercialization, or we may be unable to expand our operations or otherwise capitalize on our business opportunities, as desired. Any of the above could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects and cause the price of our common stock to decline.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our stockholders, including purchasers of common stock in this offering; restrict our operations; or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or product candidates.

Until such time, if ever, that we can generate substantial product revenues, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, and strategic collaboration and licensing arrangements. The terms of any financing may adversely affect the holdings or the rights of our stockholders and the issuance of additional securities, whether equity or debt, by us, or the possibility of such issuance, may cause the market price of our common stock to decline. Debt 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, licensing or assigning our intellectual property rights, declaring dividends, and possibly other restrictions.

To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, our stockholders’ interest will be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect the rights of our common stockholders.

If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financings when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce, or terminate our product development or future commercialization efforts. Alternatively, we could be required to seek collaborators for our product candidates at an earlier stage than would otherwise be desirable or on terms that are less favorable than might otherwise be available. We might need to relinquish or license on unfavorable terms our rights to our product candidates in markets where we otherwise would seek to pursue development and commercialization ourselves, or to license our intellectual property to others who could develop products that will compete with our products. Any of these actions could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

We have a limited operating history, which may make it difficult to evaluate our technologies and product candidate development capabilities or to predict our future performance.

We are a clinical-stage biotechnology company formed in 2011, with no products approved for commercial sale, and we have not generated any revenues from product sales. Our operations to date have been limited to financing and staffing our company, developing our technologies, and identifying and developing our product candidates. Our prospects must be considered in light of the uncertainties, risks, expenses, and difficulties frequently encountered by companies in their early stages of operations. We have not yet demonstrated an ability to obtain marketing approval, manufacture at commercial scale, or conduct sales and marketing activities for our product candidates, which are all necessary for successful product commercialization. Consequently, predictions about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history or

19

a history of successfully developing and commercializing cell therapy products. Our ability to generate product revenue or profits, which we do not expect to occur for many years, if ever, will depend heavily on the successful development and eventual commercialization of our product candidates, which may never occur. Unless we receive approval from the FDA or other regulatory authorities for our product candidates, we will not have product revenues. We may never be able to develop or commercialize a marketable cell therapy product.

We are early in our development efforts. To date, we have only dosed the first patient in our first clinical trial, which is the ANTLER phase 1 clinical trial for our CB-010 product candidate. All of our programs will require clinical development, regulatory approval, manufacturing at commercial scale, distribution channels, a commercial organization, significant marketing efforts, and substantial investment before we generate any revenue from product sales. In addition, our product candidates must be approved for marketing by the FDA before we may commercialize our products in the United States and, if we wish to commercialize our products outside the United States, by foreign regulatory agencies. Furthermore, following closing of this offering, we expect to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company, including significant legal, accounting, insurance, investor relations, and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company.

Additionally, the rapidly evolving nature of the genome-editing and cell therapy fields may make it difficult to evaluate our technologies and product candidates as well as to predict our future performance. Our short history as an operating company makes any assessment of our future success or viability subject to significant uncertainty. We will encounter risks and difficulties, known and unknown, that are frequently experienced by early-stage companies in rapidly evolving fields. As we advance our product candidates, we must transition from a company with a research focus to a company capable of supporting clinical development and, if successful, commercial activities. We may not be successful in such transitions. If we do not address these risks successfully, our business will suffer. Similarly, we expect that our financial condition and operating results may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year due to a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. As a result, you should not rely upon the results of any quarterly or annual period as an indicator of future operating performance.

Risks Relating to Our Business, Government Regulation, Technology, and Industry

We are early in our development efforts and it will be many years before we commercialize a product candidate, if ever. If we are unable to advance our product candidates through clinical trials, obtain regulatory approval, and ultimately commercialize our product candidates, or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

We are early in the development of our cell therapy product candidates and have focused our research and development efforts to date on various CRISPR genome-editing technologies, including our chRDNA genome-editing technology, as well as identifying our initial chimeric antigen receptor T cell, or CAR-T cell, product candidates. Our future success depends heavily on the successful development of our product candidates. Our ability to generate product revenue, which we do not expect will occur for many years, if ever, will be a result of the successful development and eventual commercialization of our product candidates, which may never occur. Our product candidates may have adverse side effects or fail to demonstrate safety and efficacy. Additionally, our product candidates may have other characteristics that may make them impractical or prohibitively expensive for large-scale manufacturing. Furthermore, our product candidates may not receive regulatory approval or, if they do, they may not be accepted by the medical community or patients or may not be competitive with other products that become available. We currently generate no revenue from sales of any product and we may never be able to successfully develop or commercialize a marketable product.

We must submit investigational new drug, or IND, applications to the FDA to initiate clinical trials in the United States. In late August 2020, the FDA cleared our IND for our first product candidate, CB-010. The filing of future INDs for our other product candidates is subject to additional preclinical research, research-scale and clinical-scale manufacturing, exploration of possible other genome-editing systems, evaluation of potential targets, or other factors yet to be identified. In the case of our CB-012 product, we will need to identify and select

20

our Cas12a chRDNA guides with acceptable accuracy and efficiency. In addition, commencing any new clinical trial is subject to review by the FDA based on the acceptability and sufficiency of our chemistry, manufacturing, and controls, or CMC, and preclinical information provided to support our IND. In the event that the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities require us to complete additional preclinical studies or we are required to satisfy other requests for additional data or information, our clinical trials may be delayed. Even after we receive and incorporate guidance from the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities, these regulatory authorities could disagree that we have satisfied all requirements to initiate our clinical trial or they may change their position on the acceptability of our trial design or the clinical endpoints selected. They could impose a clinical hold, which may require us to complete additional preclinical studies or clinical trials. The success of our product candidates will depend on several factors, including the following:

21

Our product candidates are cell therapies generated by novel chRDNA genome-editing technologies, which makes it difficult to predict the time and cost of developing our product candidates and obtaining regulatory approval. To date, no other products that use these genome-editing technologies have advanced into clinical trials or received marketing approval in the United States.

We are concentrating our initial research, development, and manufacturing efforts on our allogeneic CAR-T cell therapies that are intended to treat patients with certain cancers. Before obtaining regulatory approval for the commercial sale of any of our product candidates, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex, and expensive preclinical studies and clinical trials that our product candidates are both safe and effective for their intended use. The clinical trial requirements of the FDA and other regulatory authorities, and the criteria these regulators use to determine the safety and efficacy of a product candidate, vary substantially according to the type, complexity, novelty, intended use, and target population of our product candidates. The outcome of preclinical studies and clinical trials is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the preclinical study and clinical trial processes and because we have never successfully launched a product and our first product candidate is in an early stage of clinical development, there is a high risk of failure. We may never succeed in developing marketable products.

Approval processes by the FDA or other regulatory authorities for existing autologous anti-CD19 and anti-B cell maturation antigen, or BCMA, CAR-T cell therapies may not be indicative of what these regulatory authorities will require for approval of our allogeneic anti-CD19 CAR-T cell therapy or our other product candidates. Also, although we expect reduced variability in our allogeneic products candidates compared to autologous products, we do not have any clinical data supporting benefits of lower variability, and the use of healthy donor material may create separate variability challenges for us. Moreover, our product candidates may not perform successfully in clinical trials or may be associated with serious adverse events that distinguish them from the autologous anti-CD19 and anti-BCMA CAR-T therapies that have previously been approved. For instance, allogeneic product candidates may result in graft versus host disease, or GvHD, not experienced with autologous products. GvHD results when allogeneic T cells see the patient’s normal tissue as foreign and attack and damage those cells. Even if we collect promising initial clinical data for our product candidates, longer-term data may reveal adverse events or responses that are not durable. Unexpected negative clinical outcomes would significantly impact our business.

In addition, approved autologous CAR-T therapies and those under development have shown frequent rates of cytokine release syndrome, neurotoxicity, serious infections, prolonged cytopenia, and hypogammaglobulinemia, and other serious adverse events that have resulted in patient deaths. There may be similar adverse events for our allogeneic CAR-T and CAR-NK cell therapy product candidates, including patient deaths. Moreover, patients eligible for allogeneic CAR-T cell therapies but ineligible for autologous CAR-T cell therapies due to aggressive cancer or an inability to wait for autologous CAR-T cell therapies may be at greater risk for complications and death from therapy. Our allogeneic CAR-T cell product candidates may also cause unique adverse events related to the differences between the donor and patients, such as GvHD or infusion reactions. Our product candidates may not be successful in limiting the risk of GvHD, exhaustion of the CAR-T cells, or premature rejection by the patient’s immune system. If significant GvHD or other serious adverse events are observed with the administration of our product candidates, or if any of our product candidates are viewed as less safe or effective than autologous therapies or other allogeneic therapies, our ability to develop other allogeneic therapies may be adversely affected.

We use our chRDNA genome-editing platform to generate our product candidates, and we believe chRDNAs significantly improve the specificity of CRISPR genome editing (e.g., reduce the number of off-target

22

events). CRISPR genome editing generally is relatively new; to date, no genome-editing technologies have been approved in the United States although clinical trials of product candidates based on CRISPR and other genome-editing technologies are underway. As a result, the regulatory approval process for cell therapy product candidates such as ours is uncertain and may be more expensive and take longer than the approval process for product candidates based on better known or more extensively studied technologies. As such, it is difficult to accurately predict the developmental challenges we may face as we progress our product candidates through preclinical studies and clinical trials. There may be long-term adverse effects from treatment with our product candidates resulting from the use of our chRDNA genome-editing technology that we cannot predict at this time. Also, animal models may not exist for some of the diseases we choose to pursue in our programs, which may complicate and increase the cost of preclinical research. As a result of these factors, it is difficult for us to predict the time and cost of our product candidate development, and we cannot predict whether the application of our chRDNA genome-editing technology, or other genome-editing technologies we may use in the future, will result in the identification, development, preclinical studies, and clinical trials to support regulatory approval of any of our cell therapy product candidates. There can be no assurance that any development problems we experience in the future related to our chRDNA genome-editing technology or any of our research programs will not cause significant delays or unanticipated costs, or that such development problems can be solved. We may not achieve the desired safety and efficacy of our product candidates. Also, we may not sufficiently improve genome-editing specificity and our genome editing may have off-target events. Moreover, we may not be able to achieve a high degree of on-target gene knockout and insertion efficiency in developing our product candidates. While we expect to have initial clinical data from the CB-010 clinical trial in 2022, any of these factors may prevent us from completing our clinical trials, delay or cause us to fail to meet our clinical trial endpoints, or lead us to fail to commercialize any of our cell therapy product candidates.

We may also experience delays in developing robust, reproducible, and scalable manufacturing processes and transferring those processes to CMOs, which may prevent us from completing our clinical studies or commercializing our products on a timely or profitable basis, if at all. Currently, we have only manufactured our CB-010 product candidate for clinical trials. In addition, since we are in the early stages of clinical development, we do not know the doses to be used in later phase 2 or pivotal trials needed to evaluate the efficacy of our product candidates, which will impact the manufacturing requirements for our product candidates. Finding a suitable dose for our cell therapy product candidates may delay our anticipated clinical development timelines and prolong our clinical trials. Accordingly, our expectations with regard to our costs of manufacturing may vary significantly as we develop our product candidates and understand these critical factors. Such factors may delay or keep us from bringing a product candidate to market and could decrease our ability to generate sufficient product revenue, which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Manufacturing of our product candidates is complex and we could experience manufacturing problems during our clinical trials, which could delay or limit our market launch or commercial distribution.

The manufacturing processes used to produce our cell therapy product candidates are and will be complex, as our product candidates are novel products and only our CB-010 product candidate has been manufactured according to current good manufacturing processes, or cGMPs, to date. Several factors could cause production interruptions including facility contaminations; shortages or quality problems; contamination of healthy donor cells, chRDNA guides, Cas proteins, viruses, or induced pluripotent stem cell, or iPSC, master cell banks or working cell banks; natural disasters, including the COVID-19 pandemic; labor shortages and strikes; lack of experienced scientific, quality control, and manufacturing personnel; human error; or other disruptions in the operations of our suppliers and CMOs. We conduct process development activities at our facility and we may experience personnel and supply shortages. Problems with our manufacturing process, even minor deviations from the normal process, could result in product defects or manufacturing failures that result in lot failures, product recalls, product liability claims, or insufficient inventory. We may encounter problems achieving adequate quantities and quality of clinical grade materials that meet FDA or other applicable standards or specifications with consistent and acceptable production yields and costs.

23

As our product candidates proceed through preclinical studies to clinical trials to regulatory review, and potential marketing approval and commercialization, it is common that various aspects of our manufacturing methods will be altered along the way in an effort to optimize processes and results. Such changes carry the risk that they will not achieve these intended objectives. If we make any of these changes, they could cause our product candidates to perform differently and affect the results of clinical trials conducted with the altered materials. Such changes may also require additional testing as well as notification to or approval from the FDA or other regulatory authorities, which could delay completion of our clinical trials, require bridging clinical trials, require repetition of one or more clinical trials, increase clinical trial costs, delay approval of our product candidates, if any, and ultimately jeopardize commercialization.

If we receive marketing approval for a product candidate, the FDA and other regulatory authorities may require us to submit samples of any lot of any approved product together with the protocols showing the results of applicable tests at any time. Under some circumstances, the FDA or other regulatory authorities may require that we not distribute a lot until the relevant agency authorizes its release. Slight deviations in the manufacturing process, including those affecting quality attributes and stability, may result in unacceptable changes in the product that could result in lot failures or product recalls. Problems in our manufacturing processes could restrict our ability to meet market demand for our products. All of these factors could be costly to us and otherwise harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Our business is highly dependent on the success of our lead product candidates, including CB-010 and CB-011, which will require significant additional preclinical and clinical testing before we can seek regulatory approval and potentially commercially launch our product candidates. If we are unable to advance our preclinical studies and clinical trials, obtain approval for and successfully commercialize our lead product candidates for the treatment of patients in approved indications, or if we are significantly delayed in doing so, our business would be significantly harmed.

Our business and future success depends on our ability to advance our product candidates through preclinical studies and clinical trials, obtain regulatory approval for, and successfully commercialize, our product candidates. Because CB-010 is our first allogeneic cell therapy product to be evaluated in the clinic, the failure of our lead product candidate, or the failure of other companies’ allogeneic anti-CD19 CAR-T cell therapies, including for reasons due to safety, efficacy, or durability, may impede our ability to develop not only CB-010 but our other CAR-T and CAR-NK product candidates as well, and may significantly influence physicians’ and regulatory authorities’ opinions with regard to the viability of our entire pipeline of allogeneic cell therapies. In order to submit INDs for our other product candidates, we will need to complete many objectives, such as our preclinical research of product candidates still in discovery and advancement of cGMP conditions for our product candidates. If we are unable to achieve any of these objectives, we may not be able to submit other INDs in a timely manner or at all, which would significantly harm our business. Specifically, in terms of our lead product candidates:

CB-010

CB-010 is our allogeneic anti-CD19 CAR-T cell therapy for the treatment of relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or B-NHL. We use our Cas9 chRDNA genome-editing technology to eliminate the T cell receptor from healthy donor T cells to reduce the risk of GvHD and to remove the PD-1 checkpoint from the CAR-T cell surface to reduce exhaustion of the CAR-T cells. We have manufactured CB-010 under cGMP conditions and are enrolling patients for our ANTLER phase 1 clinical trial. We do not know if the preclinical animal results we observed will be borne out in human patients or if CB-010 will ultimately prove to be safe and effective.

CB-011

CB-011 is our allogeneic anti-BCMA CAR-T cell therapy for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, or MM. We are currently in preclinical animal studies with CB-011, using CB-011 cell

24

therapy materials which we have produced under current Good Laboratory Practices, or cGLP. We use our Cas12a chRDNA genome-editing technology to eliminate the T cell receptor from healthy donor cells to reduce the risk of GvHD. Additionally, we use our Ca12a chRDNA technology to remove endogenous HLA class I presentation from the CAR-T cells and insert an HLA-E-B2M fusion protein into the B2M gene, which we believe immune cloaks the CAR-T cells and blunts T- and NK cell-mediated rejection of the allogeneic CAR-T cells by the patient’s immune system, potentially resulting in greater persistence, although we have no clinical evidence for this hypothesis. We anticipate filing our IND for our CB-011 product candidate in 2022; however, there can be no assurances that we will be able to produce CB-011 under cGMP conditions or that we will not experience delays in filing our IND.

CB-012

CB-012 is our allogeneic anti-CD371 CAR-T cell therapy for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia. We are currently considering various armoring strategies, which will then drive our selection of Cas12a chRDNA guides. We do not anticipate filing our IND for our CB-012 product candidate until 2023; however, there can be no assurances that we will be able to produce CB-012 under cGLP or cGMP conditions or that we will not experience delays in filing our IND.

CB-020

We are conducting preclinical discovery research on natural killer, or NK, cells derived from iPSCs, and whether we can edit such iNK cells for solid tumor-targeted cell therapy development. We have not yet chosen which genome-editing technology we will use to edit the iNK cells nor do we know whether such editing will be successful. To date, we have focused on Cas12a chRDNA editing of iPSCs and on differentiating iPSCs into iNKs. We anticipate selecting a cell-surface target for our CB-020 product candidate in 2022.

Thus, although our product candidates are in various stages of research and development, only our CB-010 product candidate is in a phase 1 clinical trial, and we have substantial hurdles to overcome before any of our product candidates are approved, commercialized, and generate revenues, if at all.

We may not be successful in our efforts to identify and successfully research and develop additional product candidates and may expend our limited resources to pursue particular product candidates or indications while failing to capitalize on other product candidates or indications that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of commercial success.

Part of our business strategy involves identifying and developing new cell therapy product candidates. The process by which we identify product candidates may fail to yield successful product candidates for a number of reasons, including:

25

We have limited financial and managerial resources. We are focused initially on allogeneic CAR-T and CAR-NK cell therapies and, as a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to timely capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future 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 when it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate.

If we experience delays or difficulties enrolling patients in the clinical trials for our product candidates, including our ANTLER phase 1 clinical trial, our ability to advance CB-010 and our other product candidates through clinical development and the regulatory process could be delayed or prevented.

The timely completion of clinical trials depends, among other things, on our ability to enroll a sufficient number of patients who remain in the trial until its conclusion. We may encounter delays in enrolling or be unable to enroll a sufficient number of patients to complete any of our clinical trials and, even if patients are enrolled, they may withdraw from our clinical trials before completion. We have dosed the first patient in our ANTLER phase 1 clinical trial for our CB-010 product candidate. For our ANTLER phase 1 clinical trial, we have entered into a contract with a clinical research organization, or CRO, as well as clinical trial agreements with the sites participating in our trial. Patient selection and enrollment may be challenging. Our clinical protocol excludes many non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients from the ANTLER phase 1 clinical trial, including patients previously treated with anti-CD19-targeted therapy or allogeneic stem cell transplantation, patients with active or chronic GvHD requiring therapy, or patients unwilling to follow extended safety monitoring.

Our ANTLER phase 1 clinical trial, as well as any future clinical trials for our other product candidates, will compete for enrollment of patients with other clinical trials for product candidates that are in the same cell therapeutic areas with the same or similar study populations as our product candidates. Our clinical trials will also compete for enrollment of patients with other clinical trials for product candidates based on non-cellular modalities, such as small molecules and antibodies, that are intended for the same or similar study populations as our product candidates. This competition will reduce the number and types of patients available to us because some patients who might opt to enroll in our trials may instead opt to enroll in a trial being conducted by one of our competitors. Additionally, since the number of qualified and experienced clinical investigators for therapeutic areas is limited, some of our clinical trial sites may be also conducting clinical trials for some of our competitors, which may reduce the number of patients who are available for our clinical trials at that clinical trial site. Moreover, because our product candidates represent a departure from more commonly used methods for cancer treatment, potential patients and their doctors may be inclined to use conventional therapies, such as chemotherapy, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, or autologous CAR-T cell therapies, rather than refer patients to our clinical trials. Because our cell therapy product candidates are edited with chRDNA guides, our products may be perceived to have additional or greater safety risks. Patients eligible for allogeneic CAR-T cell therapies but ineligible for autologous CAR-T cell therapies may be difficult to treat due to advanced and aggressive cancers and may fail to experience improved outcomes and be at greater risk for complications and death from our product candidates. If patients are unwilling to participate in our cell therapy trials, the timeline for recruiting patients, conducting clinical trials, and obtaining regulatory approval of any of our product candidates may be delayed.

26

In addition, the enrollment of patients depends on many factors, including:

Enrollment delays in our clinical trials may result in increased development costs for any product candidates we may develop, which may cause our stock price to decline and limit our ability to obtain additional financing. If we have difficulty enrolling a sufficient number of patients to conduct our clinical trials as planned, we may need to delay, limit, or terminate our ANTLER phase 1 clinical trial or future clinical trials, and postpone or forgo seeking marketing approval, any of which would have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Clinical testing is expensive, time consuming, and subject to uncertainty. We cannot guarantee that any clinical studies will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. Issues may arise that could suspend or terminate our clinical trials. A failure of one or more clinical studies may occur at any stage of testing, and our future clinical studies may not be successful.

Events that may prevent successful or timely completion of clinical development include:

27

If we are required to extend the duration of any clinical trials or to conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials or other testing of our product candidates beyond those that we currently contemplate; if we are unable to successfully complete preclinical studies or clinical trials of our product candidates or other testing; if the results of these trials, studies, or tests are negative or produce inconclusive results; if there are safety

28

concerns; or if we determine that the observed safety or efficacy profile would not be competitive in the marketplace, we may:

Our clinical trials may fail to adequately demonstrate the safety and efficacy of any of our product candidates and the development of our product candidates may be delayed or unsuccessful, which could prevent or delay regulatory approval and commercialization.

Our product candidates are in various stages of preclinical and clinical development. If we encounter safety or efficacy problems in our ongoing or future studies, our developmental plans and business could be significantly harmed. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety profiles and efficacy results despite having progressed through initial clinical trials. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or adverse safety profiles, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials. Based upon negative or inconclusive results, we may decide, or regulatory agencies may require us, to conduct additional clinical trials or preclinical studies. In addition, data obtained from clinical trials are susceptible to varying interpretations, and regulatory agencies may not interpret our data as favorably as we do, which may delay, limit, or prevent regulatory approval.

In addition, the design of a clinical trial can determine whether its results will support approval of our product candidates, and flaws in the design of a clinical trial may not be apparent until the clinical trial is well advanced. We have limited experience designing clinical trials and may be unable to design and execute a clinical trial that will support regulatory approval.

From time to time, we may publish initial, interim, or preliminary data from our clinical trials. Initial, interim, or preliminary data from clinical trials are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available. 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 evaluate all data at the time of publishing initial, interim, or preliminary data. These data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the data we previously published. As a result, initial, interim, and preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Moreover, initial, interim, and preliminary data are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as more patient data

29

become available when patients mature on study, patient enrollment continues, or, for final data, as other ongoing or future clinical trials with a product candidate further develop. Past results of clinical trials may not be predictive of future results. Unfavorable differences between initial, interim, or preliminary data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects and may cause the trading price of our common stock to fluctuate significantly.

Because of these risks, our product candidates may fail or encounter difficulties in clinical trials. If we are unable to advance our product candidates through clinical trials to seek marketing approval, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects may be materially harmed.

If our product candidates cause serious adverse events or undesirable side effects, including injury and death, or have other properties that could delay or prevent regulatory approval, their commercial potential may be limited or extinguished.

Product candidates we develop may be associated with undesirable or unacceptable side effects, unexpected characteristics, or other serious adverse events, including death. Immunotherapy, and its method of action of harnessing the immune system, is powerful and could lead to serious side effects that we only discover in clinical trials. In addition to potential serious adverse events from the immune system or side effects caused by our CB-010 product, or any product candidate we may develop and advance into one more clinical trials, the product candidate administration process and related procedures may also cause undesirable side effects. Patients who enroll in our ANTLER phase 1 clinical trial, and potentially future trials, will undergo a lymphodepletion regimen, including administration of fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, which can lead to serious adverse events. Because these regimens will cause a transient and sometimes prolonged immune suppression, patients will have an increased risk of certain infections, which could ultimately lead to death. We expect to have to educate clinical site personnel administering our cell therapy product candidates to understand the side effect profiles for our product candidates. Inadequate recognition or management of the potential side effects of our product candidates could result in patient injury or death. If any undesirable or unacceptable side effects, unexpected characteristics, or other serious adverse events occur, our clinical trials could be suspended or terminated, and our business and reputation could suffer substantial harm.

There can be no assurance that we will resolve any adverse event issues related to any of our products to the satisfaction of the FDA or any regulatory agency in a timely manner or at all. If in the future we are unable to successfully demonstrate that such adverse events were caused by factors other than our product candidates, the FDA or other regulatory authorities could order us to cease further clinical trials of, or deny approval of, our product candidates. Even if we are able to demonstrate that such serious adverse events are not product candidate-related, such occurrences could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete our clinical trials. Moreover, if we elect, or are required, to delay, suspend, or terminate any 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 these product candidates may be delayed or eliminated. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

The FDA may disagree with our regulatory plans and we may fail to obtain regulatory approval of our cell therapy product candidates.

If and when our ANTLER phase 1 clinical trial for our CB-010 product candidate is completed and, assuming positive data, we will propose to advance to a pivotal clinical trial. Although the FDA has found substantial evidence to support approval outside of the traditional phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 framework for the approved anti-CD19 and anti-BCMA CAR-T cell therapies, the general approach for FDA approval of a new biologic is for the sponsor to provide dispositive data from at least two adequate and well-controlled clinical trials of the relevant biologic in the applicable patient population. Such clinical trials typically involve hundreds of patients, have significant costs, and take years to complete. We do not have agreement or guidance from the FDA that our regulatory development plans will be sufficient for submission of a biologics license application, or

30

BLA. For example, the FDA may require that we conduct a comparative trial against an approved therapy, such as an approved autologous CAR-T cell therapy, which would significantly delay our development timelines and require substantially more resources. In addition, the FDA may limit our evaluation to patients who have failed or who are ineligible for autologous therapy, patients who may be difficult to treat, or patients with advanced and aggressive cancer, and our product candidates may fail to improve outcomes for such patients.

In addition, the standard of care may change with the approval of new products in the same indications to which our cell therapy product candidates are directed. This may result in the FDA or other regulatory authorities requesting additional studies to show that our product candidate is comparable or superior to the new products.

Our clinical trial results may also not support marketing approval. In addition, our product candidates could fail to receive regulatory approval for many reasons, including:

Even if we comply with all FDA requests, we may still fail to obtain regulatory approval. We cannot be sure that we will ever obtain regulatory clearance for our product candidates. Failure to obtain FDA approval of our product candidates will severely undermine our business by leaving us without a commercially marketable product in the United States, and therefore without any source of revenues from product sales in the United States, until another product candidate can be developed or obtained and ultimately approved.

Even if we complete the necessary preclinical studies and clinical trials, the regulatory approval process is expensive, time-consuming, and uncertain, and we may be unable to obtain the regulatory approvals necessary for the commercialization of our product candidates; furthermore, if there are delays in obtaining regulatory approvals, we may not be able to commercialize our products, may lose competitive lead time, and our ability to generate revenues will be materially impaired.

The process of obtaining marketing approvals, both in the United States and in other jurisdictions, is expensive, may take many years, if approval is obtained at all, and can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity, and novelty of the product candidates involved. It is impossible to predict if or when any of our product candidates will prove to be safe and effective in humans or if we will receive

31

regulatory approval for such product candidates, and the risk of failure through the development process is high. Any product candidates we may develop and the activities associated with their development and commercialization, including their manufacture, preclinical and clinical development, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, advertising, promotion, sale, and distribution, are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory authorities.

Failure to obtain marketing approval for a product candidate will prevent us from commercializing the product candidate in a given jurisdiction. We have not received approval or authorization to market any product candidates from regulatory authorities in any jurisdiction and it is possible that none of our product candidates or any product candidates we may seek to develop in the future will ever obtain marketing approval or commercialization. We have not previously submitted a BLA to the FDA or made a similar submission to any foreign regulatory authority. A BLA must include extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to establish our product candidate’s safety and efficacy for each desired indication. The BLA must also include significant information regarding the CMC for our product. Any product candidates we develop may not be effective; may be only moderately effective; or may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities, or other characteristics that may preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use. The FDA and other regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept our BLA applications and decide that our data are insufficient and require additional preclinical studies or clinical trials. The same may happen with review of our product candidates by foreign regulatory authorities. In addition, varying interpretations of the data obtained from preclinical studies and clinical trials could delay, limit, or prevent marketing approval of our product candidates. Any marketing approval we ultimately obtain may be limited or subject to restrictions or post-approval commitments that render our approved product not commercially viable. If we experience delays in obtaining approval or if we fail to obtain approval of any product candidates we may develop, the commercial prospects for those product candidates and our ability to generate revenues will be materially impaired and we may lose competitive lead time as similar products enter the market.

We expect the novel nature of our product candidates to create further challenges in obtaining regulatory approval. For example, the FDA has limited experience with the development of allogeneic T cell and NK cell therapies for cancer. We may also request regulatory approval of future CAR-T or CAR-NK cell therapy product candidates by target, regardless of cancer type or origin, which the FDA may have difficulty accepting if our clinical trials have only involved cancers of certain types or origins. The FDA may also require a panel of experts, referred to as an Advisory Committee, to deliberate on the adequacy of the safety and efficacy data. The opinion of an Advisory Committee, although not binding, may have a significant impact on our ability to obtain marketing approval of our product candidates based on our completed clinical trials, as the FDA often adheres to an Advisory Committee’s recommendations. Accordingly, the regulatory approval pathway for our product candidates may be uncertain, complex, expensive, and lengthy, and approval may not be obtained.

The regulatory landscape that will govern our product candidates is uncertain; regulations relating to more established gene therapy and cell therapy products are still developing, and changes in regulatory requirements could result in delays or discontinuation of development of our product candidates or unexpected costs in obtaining regulatory approval.

Because we are developing novel CAR-T and CAR-NK cell therapy product candidates that are unique biological entities, the regulatory requirements that we will be subject to are not entirely clear. Even with respect to more established products that fit into the categories of gene therapies or cell therapies, the regulatory landscape is still developing. For example, regulatory requirements governing gene therapy products and cell therapy products have changed frequently and may continue to change in the future. Moreover, there is substantial, and sometimes uncoordinated, overlap in those responsible for regulation of existing gene therapy products and cell therapy products. For example, in the United States, the FDA has established the Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies, OTAT, formerly known as the Office of Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies, OCTGT, within its Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, CBER, to consolidate the review of gene

32

therapy and related products, and the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to advise CBER on its review. Gene therapy clinical trials are also subject to additional review and oversight by an institutional biosafety committee, IBC, a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees basic and clinical research conducted at the institution participating in the clinical trial. Although the FDA decides whether individual gene therapy protocols may proceed, review process and determinations of other reviewing bodies can impede or delay the initiation of a clinical trial, even if the FDA has reviewed the study and cleared its initiation. Conversely, the FDA can place an IND on clinical hold even if such other entities have provided a favorable review. Furthermore, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an independent IRB at or servicing each institution at which a clinical trial will be conducted. In addition, adverse events in clinical trials conducted by others may cause the FDA or other regulatory bodies to change the requirements for approval of any of our product candidates.

We may apply for Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy designation, Breakthrough Therapy Designation, and Fast Track Designation review by the FDA for some, if not all, of our allogeneic CAR-T and CAR-NK cell therapies, but there are no assurances that we will receive any of these forms of review or that the FDA will grant priority review to any of our product candidates.

We may seek Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy, or RMAT, designation for some or all of our CAR-T and CAR-NK cell therapy product candidates in the United States. In 2017, the FDA established the RMAT designation as part of its implementation of the 21st Century Cures Act to expedite review of any biologic or drug that meets the following criteria: it qualifies as a RMAT, which is defined as a cell and gene therapy, therapeutic tissue engineering product, human cell and tissue product, or any combination product using such therapies or products, with limited exceptions; it is intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition; and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the biologic has the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. Like Breakthrough Therapy Designation, RMAT designation provides potential benefits that include early interactions and more frequent meetings with the FDA to discuss the development plan for the product candidate and eligibility for rolling review and priority review. Product candidates granted RMAT designation may also be eligible for accelerated approval on the basis of surrogate or intermediate clinical trial endpoints reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit, or reliance upon data obtained from a meaningful number of sites, including through expansion to additional sites. RMAT-designated products that receive accelerated approval may, as appropriate, fulfill their post-approval requirements through the submission of clinical evidence, clinical trials, patient registries, or other sources of real-world evidence such as electronic health records, through the collection of larger confirmatory data sets as agreed with the FDA, or via post-approval monitoring of all patients treated with such therapy prior to approval of the therapy. There is no assurance that we will be able to obtain RMAT designation for any of our product candidates. RMAT designation does not change the FDA’s evidentiary standards for product approval, including demonstrating safety and efficacy and there is no assurance that such designation will result in expedited review or approval or that the approved indication will not be narrower than the indication covered by the designation. Additionally, RMAT designation can be rescinded if the criteria for eligibility cease to be met as clinical data emerge.

We may also seek Breakthrough Therapy Designation for some or all of our CAR-T and CAR-NK cell therapy product candidates. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a therapy that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other therapies, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the therapy 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 therapies that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and us can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development. Therapies 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 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

33

Breakthrough Therapy Designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review, or approval compared to therapies considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not ensure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates qualify as breakthrough therapies, the FDA may later decide that such product candidates no longer meet the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

We may also seek Fast Track Designation for some or all of our CAR-T and CAR-NK cell therapy product candidates. If a therapy is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and the therapy demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for this condition, we may apply for Fast Track Designation. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant this designation, so even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for this designation, we cannot assure that the FDA would decide to grant it. Even if we do receive Fast Track Designation, we may not experience a faster development process, review, or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. For Fast Track product candidates, we might have more interactions with the FDA and the FDA may initiate review of sections of a Fast Track product marketing application before the application is complete. This rolling review may be available if the FDA determines, after preliminary evaluation of clinical data submitted by us, that a Fast Track product candidate may be effective. We will also be required to provide, and the FDA must approve, a schedule for the submission of the remaining information and we will be required to pay applicable user fees. However, the FDA’s time period goal for reviewing an application does not begin until the last section of the application is submitted. The FDA may withdraw 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.

Finally, if the FDA determines that a product candidate offers a treatment for a serious condition and, if approved, the product would provide a significant improvement in safety or efficacy, the FDA may designate the product candidate for priority review. A priority review designation means that the goal for the FDA to review a BLA application is six months, rather than the standard review period of ten months. The FDA has broad discretion with respect to whether or not to grant priority review status to a product candidate, so even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for such designation or status, the FDA may decide not to grant it. Moreover, a priority review designation does not necessarily result in expedited regulatory review or approval process or necessarily confer any advantage with respect to approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. Receiving priority review from the FDA does not guarantee approval within the six-month review cycle or at all.

We may seek orphan drug designation for some or all of our allogeneic CAR-T and CAR-NK cell therapy product candidates across various indications, but we may be unable to obtain such designations or to maintain the benefits associated with orphan drug designation, including market exclusivity, which may cause our revenue, if any, to be reduced.

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a biologic or drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, defined as a disease or condition with a patient population of fewer than 200,000 in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the United States when there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available the biologic or drug in the United States will be recovered from sales in the United States for that biologic or drug. In order to obtain orphan drug designation, we must make a request before submitting our BLA for a particular product candidate. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the generic or trade name, or the chemical name or a meaningful description of our biologic, its designated orphan use and date of designation, and our company name are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

If a product candidate that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval of that particular product for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including a BLA, to market the

34

same biologic for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity or if the FDA finds that we, as holder of the orphan drug exclusivity, have not shown that we can ensure the availability of sufficient quantities of the orphan drug to meet the needs of patients with the disease or condition for which the drug was designated. As a result, even if one of our product candidates receives orphan exclusivity, the FDA can still approve other biologics that do not have the same principal molecular structural features for use in treating the same indication or disease or the same biologic for a different indication or disease during the exclusivity period. Furthermore, the FDA can waive orphan exclusivity if we are unable to manufacture sufficient supply of our product or if a subsequent applicant demonstrates clinical superiority over our product.

We plan to seek orphan drug designation for some or all of our allogeneic CAR-T and CAR-NK cell therapy product candidates in specific orphan indications in which there is a medically plausible basis for the use of these products. Even if we obtain orphan drug designation, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be limited if we seek approval for an indication broader than the orphan designated indication and may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if we are unable to ensure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition, or if a subsequent applicant demonstrates clinical superiority over our products, if approved. In addition, although we may seek orphan drug designation for our product candidates, we may never receive such designations.

Our allogeneic CAR-T and CAR-NK cell therapy product candidates will be regulated as biological products, or biologics, and therefore may be subject to uncertainty regarding regulatory exclusivity.

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, was enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or, collectively, the Affordable Care Act or the ACA, to establish an abbreviated pathway for the approval of biosimilar and interchangeable biological products. The regulatory pathway establishes legal authority for the FDA to review and approve biosimilar biologics, including the possible designation of a biosimilar as “interchangeable” based on its similarity to an approved biologic. Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product cannot be approved by the FDA until 12 years after the reference product was approved under a BLA. The law is complex and is still being interpreted and implemented by the FDA. As a result, its ultimate impact, implementation, and meaning are subject to uncertainty and could have a material adverse effect on the future commercial prospects for our biological products. We believe that our product candidates should qualify for the 12-year period of exclusivity. However, there is a risk that this exclusivity could be shortened due to congressional action or otherwise, or that the FDA will not consider our product candidates to be reference products for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for biosimilar competition sooner than anticipated. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar, once approved, will be substituted for any one of the reference products in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for drug products is not yet clear, and will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing.

Even if we obtain marketing approvals for our product candidates, the terms of such approvals and ongoing regulation of our products could require substantial expenditure of resources and may limit how we manufacture and market our products, which could materially impair our ability to generate revenues. Any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval could be subject to restrictions or withdrawal from the market, and we may be subject to substantial penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or if we experience unanticipated problems with our products, when and if any of them are approved.

Any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval, along with the manufacturing processes, post-approval clinical data, labeling, advertising, and promotional activities for such product, will be subject to continuous requirements of and review by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, including mandatory post-marketing safety reporting; registration and listing requirements; cGMP requirements relating to quality control, quality assurance, and corresponding maintenance of records and documents; and requirements regarding

35

recordkeeping. Even if we receive marketing approval of a product candidate, the approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval or contain requirements for costly post-marketing testing and studies to further assess the safety or efficacy of the product. The FDA also may place other conditions on our approval, including the requirement for a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, to ensure the safe use of the product by reinforcing medication use behaviors and actions. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, we must submit a proposed REMS before our product candidate will be eligible to receive marketing approval. A REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or other elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries, and other risk minimization tools.

The FDA’s policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit, or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. If we are slow to address 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. Any government investigation of alleged violations of law, including investigations of any of suppliers or CMOs, could require us to expend significant time and resources in response and could generate negative publicity. Accordingly, we and our suppliers and CMOs will continue to expend time, money, and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production, product surveillance, and quality control. If we are not able to comply with post-approval regulatory requirements, we could have the marketing approval for our products withdrawn by regulatory authorities and our ability to market any product candidates could be limited, which could adversely affect our ability to achieve or sustain profitability. Furthermore, the cost of compliance with post-approval regulations, including REMS, may have a negative effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

The FDA and other regulatory authorities closely regulate the post-approval marketing and promotion of biologics to ensure that they are marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling. The FDA and other regulatory authorities impose stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding off-label use, and if we market our products for unapproved indications, we may be subject to enforcement action for off-label marketing by the FDA and other federal and state enforcement agencies, including the U.S. Department of Justice. Violation of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or the FDCA, and other statutes, including the federal False Claims Act, relating to the promotion and advertising of prescription products, may also lead to investigations or allegations of violations of federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws and state consumer protection laws.

In addition, later discovery of previously unknown problems with our products or the manufacturing of our products, may cause:

36

Any government investigation of alleged violations of law could require us to expend significant time and resources in response and could generate negative publicity and adversely affect our reputation. The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit our ability to commercialize any product candidates we develop and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

We may never obtain approval to commercialize our product candidates outside the United States, which could limit our ability to recognize the full market potential of our product candidates and could materially impair our ability to generate revenues.

In order to market and sell any of our product candidates in the European Union, or EU, or other foreign jurisdictions, we must obtain separate marketing approvals and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements. The approval procedure varies among countries and jurisdictions and can involve additional testing. The time required to obtain approval may differ substantially from that required to obtain FDA approval. The regulatory approval process outside the United States generally includes all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. In addition, in many countries, it is required that the product be approved for reimbursement before the product can be approved for sale in that country. We may not obtain approvals from regulatory authorities outside the United States on a timely basis, if at all. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions, and approval by one regulatory authority outside the United States does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. The failure to obtain approval in one jurisdiction may negatively impact our ability to obtain approval elsewhere. We may not be able to file for marketing approvals and may not receive necessary approvals to commercialize our product candidates in multiple jurisdictions, which could materially impair our ability to generate revenue.

In June 2016, the electorate in the United Kingdom voted in favor of leaving the EU, commonly referred to as Brexit. Following protracted negotiations, the United Kingdom left the EU on January 31, 2020. Under the withdrawal agreement, there is a transitional period, during which EU laws continued to apply in the United Kingdom, which ended on December 31, 2020. The United Kingdom and EU have signed an EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which became provisionally applicable on January 1, 2021 and which has entered into force permanently on May 1, 2021, following formal approval by the United Kingdom and the EU. This agreement provides details on how some aspects of the United Kingdom and the EU’s relationship regarding pharmaceutical products will operate; however, there are still many uncertainties. Since the regulatory framework in the United Kingdom covering quality, safety, and efficacy of pharmaceutical products, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales, and distribution of pharmaceutical products is derived from EU directives and regulations, Brexit could materially impact the future regulatory regime which applies to products and the approval of product candidates in the United Kingdom or the EU, as there is now potential for the UK regulations on pharmaceutical products to diverge from the EU regulations. It remains to be seen how Brexit will impact regulatory requirements for product candidates and products in the United Kingdom in the long-term. In the meantime, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or the MHRA, the United Kingdom medicines and medical devices regulator, has published detailed guidance for industry and organizations to follow from January 1, 2021, which will be updated as necessary. Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, any marketing approvals, as a result of Brexit or otherwise, may force us to restrict or delay efforts to seek regulatory approval in the United Kingdom for our product candidates, which could harm our business.

37

Negative public opinion and increased regulatory scrutiny of genetic research and therapies involving genome editing may damage public perception of our product candidates generated through genome editing or adversely affect our ability to conduct our business or obtain regulatory approvals for our product candidates.

The chRDNA genome-editing technologies that we use are novel. Public perception may be influenced by claims that genome editing is unsafe, and therapeutic products generated through genome editing may not gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. In particular, our success will depend upon physicians specializing in our targeted diseases prescribing our product candidates, if approved for marketing, as treatments in lieu of, or in addition to, existing, more familiar treatments for which greater clinical data may be available. Any increase in negative perceptions of genome editing may result in fewer physicians prescribing our treatments or may reduce the willingness of patients to accept our products. In addition, given the novel nature of genome-edited and CAR-T and CAR-NK cell therapies, governments may place import, export, or other restrictions in order to retain control or limit the use of such technologies. Increased negative public opinion or more restrictive government regulations, either in the United States or internationally, could have a negative effect on our business or financial condition and may delay or impair the commercialization of our product candidates or demand for such products.

In particular, genome-editing technology is subject to public debate and heightened regulatory scrutiny due to ethical concerns relating to the potential application of genome-editing technology to human embryos or the human germline. We do not apply genome-editing technologies to human embryos or the human germline. In April 2016, a group of scientists reported on their attempts to edit the genome of human embryos to modify the gene for hemoglobin beta. This is the gene in which a mutation occurs in patients with the inherited blood disorder beta thalassemia. Although this research was purposefully conducted in embryos that were not viable, the work prompted calls for a moratorium or other types of restrictions on genome editing of human eggs, sperm, and embryos. Additionally, in November 2018, He Jiankui, Ph.D., a biophysics researcher who was an associate professor in the Department of Biology of the Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen, China, reportedly claimed he had created the first human genome-edited babies, twin girls. This claim, and another that Dr. He had helped create a second genome-edited pregnancy, was subsequently confirmed by Chinese authorities and was negatively received by the public, in particular by those in the scientific community. News reports indicate that Dr. He was sentenced to three years in prison and reportedly fined $430,000 in December 2019 by the Chinese government for illegal medical practice in connection with such activities. In the wake of the claim, the World Health Organization established a new advisory committee to create global governance and oversight standards for human genome editing. The Alliance for Regenerative Medicine in Washington, D.C., of which we are a member, has called for a voluntary moratorium on the use of genome-editing technologies, including CRISPR, in research that involves altering human embryos or human germline cells and has also released a bioethical framework of principles for the use of genome editing in therapeutic applications endorsed by a number of companies that use genome-editing technologies. Similarly, the NIH has announced that it would not fund any use of genome-editing technologies in human embryos, noting that there are multiple existing legislative and regulatory prohibitions against such work, including the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which prohibits the use of appropriated funds for the creation of human embryos for research purposes or for research in which human embryos are destroyed.

Although we do not use our genome-editing technologies to edit human embryos or the human germline, such public debate about the use of genome-editing technologies in human embryos and heightened regulatory scrutiny could prevent or delay our development of our product candidates and, if approved, the market acceptance of our products. More restrictive government regulations or negative public opinion would have a negative effect on our business or financial condition. Adverse events in our clinical trials or those of our competitors or of academic researchers utilizing genome-editing technologies, even if not ultimately attributable to product candidates we may identify and develop, and the resulting publicity, could result in increased governmental regulation, unfavorable public perception, potential regulatory delays in the testing or approval of our product candidates, stricter labeling requirements for those product candidates that are approved, and a decrease in demand for any such product candidates.

38

We currently have no marketing and sales organization and as a company have no experience in marketing products. If we are unable to establish marketing and sales capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to market and sell our product candidates, we may not be able to generate product revenue.

To achieve commercial success for any approved product for which we retain sales and marketing responsibilities, we must develop and build a sales and marketing team or make arrangements with third parties to perform these services. There are risks involved with both establishing our own sales and marketing capabilities and entering into arrangements with third parties to perform these services. For example, recruiting and training a sales force is expensive and time consuming and could delay our product launch. We will have to compete with other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to recruit, hire, train, and retain marketing and sales personnel. If the commercial launch of our product for which we have recruited a sales force and established marketing capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization expenses, which 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 commercialize our products on our own include:

If we are unable or decide not to establish internal sales, marketing, and distribution capabilities, we will need to enter into arrangements with third parties to perform sales, marketing, and distribution services. In such cases, our product revenue or the profitability to us from these revenue streams is likely to be lower than if we were to market and sell any product candidates that we develop ourselves. In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to sell and market 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 they may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our product candidates effectively. If we do not establish sales and marketing capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we may not be successful in commercializing our product candidates, and our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects will be materially adversely affected.

Our products may not gain market acceptance among physicians, patients, hospitals, cancer treatment centers, and others in the medical community.

The use of CAR-T and CAR-NK cells as potential cancer treatments is a recent development and may not become broadly accepted by physicians, patients, hospitals, cancer treatment centers, and others in the medical community. Ethical, social, and legal concerns about genome editing could result in the development of

39

additional regulations restricting or prohibiting our products. Even with the requisite approvals from the FDA and other regulatory authorities internationally, the commercial success of our product candidates will depend, in significant part, on the acceptance of physicians, patients, and healthcare payors of products generated through genome editing in general, and our allogeneic CAR-T and CAR-NK cell therapy product candidates in particular, as medically necessary, cost-effective, safe, and effective therapies. We expect physicians in the large bone marrow transplant centers to be particularly important to the market acceptance of our CB-010, CB-011, and CB-012 product candidates and we may not be able to adequately educate them on the benefits and risks associated with the use of our product candidates to address concerns and foster acceptance, for many reasons. For example, certain of the product candidates that we will be developing target a cell surface marker that may be present on cancer cells as well as non-cancerous cells. It is possible that our product candidates may kill these non-cancerous cells, which may result in unacceptable side effects, including death.

Additional factors will influence whether our product candidates are accepted in the market, including:

If our product candidates are approved but fail to achieve market acceptance among physicians, patients, hospitals, cancer treatment centers, or others in the medical community, we will not be able to generate significant revenue. Even if our products achieve market acceptance, we may not be able to maintain that market acceptance over time if new cell therapy products, genome-editing technologies, or other therapeutic approaches are introduced that are more favorably received than our products, are more cost effective, or render our products obsolete.

40

The market opportunities for our product candidates may be smaller than we currently believe and limited to those patients who are ineligible for or have failed prior treatment, which may adversely affect our business. Because the target patient populations of our product candidates are small, we must be able to successfully identify patients and capture a significant market share to achieve profitability and growth.

Our projections of both the number of patients who have the cancers we are targeting, as well as the subset of patients with these cancers in a position to receive second or later lines of therapy and who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates, are based on our beliefs and estimates. New studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these cancers. The number of eligible patients may turn out to be lower than expected. Additionally, the potentially addressable patient population for our product candidates may be limited or may not be amenable to treatment with our product candidates. Given the small number of patients who have the eligibility criteria and diseases that we are targeting, it is critical to our ability to become profitable that we successfully identify such patients. The effort to identify patients with diseases we seek to treat is in early stages, and we cannot accurately predict the number of patients for whom treatment might be possible. Additionally, the potentially addressable patient population for each of our product candidates may be limited or may not be amenable to treatment with our product candidates, and new patients may become increasingly difficult to identify or gain access to, which would adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Even if we obtain significant market share for our product candidates, because the potential target populations are small, we may never achieve profitability without obtaining regulatory approval for additional indications.

Even if we are able to commercialize our product candidates, such products may be subject to unfavorable pricing regulations, third-party reimbursement practices, or healthcare reform initiatives, which could harm our business.

The regulations that govern marketing approvals, pricing, and reimbursement for new biologic products vary widely from country to country. Some countries require approval of the sale price of a product before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing approval is granted. In some non-U.S. markets, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial marketing approval is granted. As a result, we might obtain marketing approval for our product candidates in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay our commercial launch of such product candidates, possibly for lengthy time periods, and such delays would negatively impact the revenues we are able to generate from the sale of our product candidates in that country. Pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more product candidates, even if any product candidates we may develop obtain marketing approval.

Successful sales of our product candidates, if approved, depend on the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors including governmental healthcare programs, managed care organizations, and commercial payors, among others. Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any product candidates for which we obtain regulatory approval. In addition, because our product candidates represent new approaches to the treatment of cancer, we cannot accurately estimate the potential revenue from our product candidates. Patients who are provided medical treatment for their conditions often rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their treatment. Obtaining coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors is critical to new product acceptance. The marketability of any product candidates for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if government and other third-party payors fail to provide coverage and adequate reimbursement. We expect downward pressure on pharmaceutical pricing to continue. Furthermore, coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more of our product candidates for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

There may be significant delays in obtaining reimbursement for newly approved products, and reimbursement coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the product is approved by the FDA or

41

similar regulatory authorities outside the United States. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that our product candidates will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that will cover our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale, and distribution. Interim reimbursement levels for new products, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of our product candidate and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost products, and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Net prices for our product candidates may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of products from countries where our product candidates may be sold at lower prices than in the United States.

Third-party payors, whether domestic or foreign, governmental or commercial, are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs. In both the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes to healthcare systems that could impact our ability to sell our product candidates, if approved, profitably. There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the federal and state levels directed at broadening the availability of, and containing or lowering the cost of, healthcare. The implementation of cost containment measures that third-party payors and healthcare providers are instituting and any other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate, or may reduce, our revenues from the sale of our product candidates, if approved, and our product candidates may not be profitable. Such reforms could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenue from product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop product candidates. Even if our product candidates are successful in clinical trials and receive marketing approval, we cannot provide any assurances that we will be able to obtain and maintain third-party payor coverage or adequate reimbursement for our product candidates in whole or in part.

Enacted and future healthcare legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain approval of and commercialize our product candidates and could adversely affect our business.

The federal Affordable Care Act substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both the government and private insurers, and significantly impacts the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The Affordable Care Act, among other things: (i) introduced a new average manufacturer price definition for biologics and drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted, or injected and not generally dispensed through retail community pharmacies; (ii) increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and expanded rebate liability from fee-for-service Medicaid utilization to include the utilization of Medicaid managed care organizations as well; (iii) established a branded prescription drug fee that pharmaceutical manufacturers of branded prescription drugs must pay to the federal government; (iv) expanded the list of covered entities eligible to participate in the 340B drug pricing program; (v) established a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 70% (increased from 50% in 2019) 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; (vi) expanded eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs by, among other things, allowing states to offer Medicaid coverage to additional individuals and by adding new mandatory eligibility categories for individuals with income at or below 133% of the federal poverty level, thereby potentially increasing manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability; (vii) created a licensure framework for follow on biologic products; and (viii) established a Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation, or CMMI, at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending, potentially including prescription drug spending. Since its enactment, there have been judicial challenges to certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act, as well as efforts by Congress to repeal or replace certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act. In the future, Congress may consider other legislation to repeal or replace elements of the Affordable Care Act, agencies may further alter their implementation of elements of the Affordable Care Act, and other judicial challenges to elements of the

42

Affordable Care Act may be brought. The extent to which any such changes may impact our business or financial condition is uncertain.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, or ATRA, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, imaging centers, and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. New laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which may materially adversely affect customer demand and affordability for our product candidates and, accordingly, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Additional changes that may affect our business include the expansion of new programs such as Medicare payment for performance initiatives for physicians under the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, or MACRA, which first affected physician payment in 2019. At this time, it is unclear how the introduction of the Medicare quality payment program will impact overall physician reimbursement.

Also, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which drug manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which have resulted in several congressional inquiries and proposed bills and initiatives, as well as state efforts, designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products.

We expect that these and other healthcare reform measures in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and lower reimbursement, and in addition, downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government-funded programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may hinder us in generating revenue, attaining profitability, or commercializing our cell therapy products once, and if, marketing approval is obtained.

In the EU, coverage and reimbursement status of any product candidates for which we obtain regulatory approval are provided for by the national laws of EU member states. The requirements may differ across the EU member states. In markets outside the United States and the EU, reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country, and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific products and therapies. Also, at the national level, actions have been taken to enact transparency laws regarding payments between pharmaceutical companies and healthcare professionals.

We cannot predict the likelihood, nature, or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action in the United States, the EU, or any other jurisdiction. 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 we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

We face significant competition from other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, which may result in other companies developing or commercializing products before, or more successfully than, we do, thus rendering our product candidates non-competitive or reducing the size of our market, and our operating results will suffer if we fail to compete effectively.

The biopharmaceutical industry, and the genome-editing, cell therapy, and immuno-oncology industries specifically, is characterized by intense competition and rapid innovation. Our potential competitors include major multi-national pharmaceutical companies, established biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies, and universities and other research institutions. Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial, technical, and other resources, such as larger research and development staffs, established

43

manufacturing capabilities and facilities, and experienced marketing organizations with well-established sales forces. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large, established companies that have greater resources. Mergers and acquisitions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated on our competitors. Competition may increase further as a result of advances in the commercial applicability of genome editing or other new technologies and greater availability of capital for investment in these industries. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient enrollment for participation in clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our development programs. In addition, due to the intense research and development taking place in the genome-editing field, including by us and our competitors, the intellectual property landscape is in flux and highly competitive. There may be significant intellectual property-related litigation and proceedings relating to our owned and in-licensed, and other third-party, intellectual property rights in the future. Our commercial opportunities could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient to administer, have broader acceptance and higher rates of reimbursement by third-party payors, or are less expensive than any product candidates that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. Additionally, genome-editing technologies developed by our competitors may render our product candidates uneconomical or obsolete, and we may not be successful in marketing any product candidates we may develop against competitor products. The key competitive factors affecting the success of all of our product candidates are likely to be their efficacy, safety, and availability of reimbursement.

Our focus is on the development of cell therapies using our chRDNA genome-editing technology. We are aware of several companies focused on developing therapies for various indications using CRISPR-Cas9 genome-editing technology including CRISPR Therapeutics AG, Editas Medicine, Inc., and Intellia. In addition, several academic groups have developed new genome-editing technologies based on CRISPR-Cas9, such as base editing and prime editing, as well as alternative CRISPR systems, which may have utility in therapeutic development. We believe companies such as Beam Therapeutics Inc., Metagenomi Technologies, LLC, Prime Medicine, Inc., and Scribe Therapeutics, Inc. are developing alternative CRISPR systems. Multiple academic labs and companies have also published on other CRISPR-associated nuclease variants that can edit human DNA. There are also companies developing therapies using non-CRISPR genome-editing technologies, such as transcription activator-like effector nucleases, meganucleases, and zinc finger nucleases. These companies include Allogene Therapeutics, Inc., bluebird bio, Inc., Cellectis S.A., Precision BioSciences, Inc., and Sangamo Therapeutics. In addition to competition from other genome-editing therapies or gene or cell therapies, any product we may develop may also face competition from other types of therapies, such as small molecule, antibody, or protein therapies.

Our allogeneic CAR-T and CAR-NK cell therapy product candidates face significant competition from multiple companies, including Allogene, Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc., Cellectis, Celyad Oncology SA, CRISPR Therapeutics AG, Fate Therapeutics, Inc., Poseida Therapeutics, Inc., Precision BioSciences, and Sangamo Therapeutics. There are over 200 preclinical- and clinical-stage autologous and allogeneic anti-CD19 CAR-T programs, some of which will be competitive with our CB-010 product candidate, and over 90 preclinical- and clinical-stage autologous and allogeneic anti-BCMA CAR-T programs, some of which will be competitive with our CB-011 product candidate. Additionally, other companies are developing allogeneic CAR-T cell therapies for AML.

To become and remain profitable, we must develop and eventually commercialize product candidates with significant market potential, which will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities. These activities can include completing preclinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates; obtaining marketing and reimbursement approval for these product candidates; manufacturing, marketing, and selling those products that are approved; and satisfying any post-marketing requirements. We may never succeed in any or all

44

of these activities and, even if we do, we may never generate revenues that are significant or large enough to achieve profitability. If we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would decrease the price of our common stock and could impair our ability to raise capital, maintain our research and development efforts, expand our business, or continue our operations. A decline in the price of our common stock also could cause stockholders to lose all or part of their investment.

Our business operations and current and future relationships with clinical site investigators, healthcare professionals, consultants, third-party payors, patient organizations, and customers will be subject to applicable healthcare regulatory laws, which could expose us to penalties.

Our business operations and current and future arrangements with clinical site investigators, healthcare professionals, consultants, third-party payors, patient organizations, and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations. These laws may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we conduct our operations, including how we market, sell, and distribute our product candidates, if approved. Such laws include:

45

Ensuring that our internal operations and future business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices, including our relationships with physicians and other healthcare providers, may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, agency guidance, 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 the laws described above or any other governmental laws and regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant penalties, including civil, criminal, and administrative penalties; damages; fines; exclusion from government-funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid or similar programs in other jurisdictions; integrity oversight and reporting obligations to resolve allegations of non-compliance; disgorgement; individual imprisonment; contractual damages; reputational harm; diminished profits; and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any of the physicians or other providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found to not be in compliance with applicable laws, they may be

46

subject to criminal, civil, or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government-funded healthcare programs and imprisonment, which could affect our ability to operate our business. Furthermore, defending against any such actions can be costly, time-consuming, and may require significant personnel resources. Therefore, even if we are successful in defending against any such actions that may be brought against us, our business may be impaired.

Our business activities will be subject to the U.S., and may be subject to certain foreign, export and import controls, embargoes, anti-corruption laws, and anti-money laundering laws and regulations including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA.

We will be subject to export control and import laws and regulations, including the U.S. Export Administration Regulations; U.S. Customs regulations; various economic and trade sanctions regulations administered by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Controls; the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended; the U.S. domestic bribery statute contained in 18 U.S.C. § 201; the U.S. Travel Act; the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001; and other state and national anti-bribery and anti-money laundering laws in the jurisdictions in which we conduct activities. Anti-corruption laws are interpreted broadly and prohibit companies and their employees, agents, contractors, and other collaborators from authorizing, promising, offering, or providing, directly or indirectly, improper payments or anything else of value to recipients in the public or private sector. We may engage third parties to sell our product candidates outside the United States once we receive regulatory approval in such jurisdictions or to obtain necessary permits, licenses, and other regulatory approvals for our product candidates. We may also have direct or indirect interactions with officials and employees of government agencies or government-affiliated hospitals, universities, and other organizations. We can be held liable for the corrupt or other illegal activities of our employees, agents, contractors, and other collaborators, even if we do not explicitly authorize or have actual knowledge of these activities. Any violations of the laws and regulations described above may result in substantial civil and criminal fines and penalties, imprisonment, the loss of export or import privileges, debarment, tax reassessments, breach of contract and fraud litigation, reputational harm, and other consequences.

If we expand our business activities outside the United States, we will be subject to the FCPA and similar anti-bribery or anti-corruption laws, regulations, and rules of other countries in which we may operate. The FCPA generally prohibits offering, promising, giving, or authorizing others to give anything of value, either directly or indirectly, to a non-United States government official in order to influence official action, or otherwise obtain or retain business. The FCPA also requires public companies to make and keep books and records that accurately and fairly reflect the transactions of the company and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls. Our business is heavily regulated and therefore involves significant interaction with public officials, including, potentially in the future, officials of non-United States governments. Additionally, in many other countries, the healthcare providers who prescribe pharmaceuticals are employed by their government, and the purchasers of pharmaceuticals are government entities; therefore, our dealings with these prescribers and purchasers will be subject to regulation under the FCPA. Recently the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, and the U.S. Department of Justice have increased their FCPA enforcement activities with respect to biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. There is no certainty that all of our employees, suppliers, CMOs, CROs, or other third parties providing services to us will comply with all applicable laws and regulations, particularly given the high level of complexity of these laws. Violations of these laws and regulations could result in fines; criminal sanctions against us, our management, or other employees; the closing down of facilities, including those of our suppliers and CMOs; requirements to obtain export licenses; cessation of business activities in sanctioned countries; implementation of compliance programs; and prohibitions on the conduct of our business. Any such violations could include prohibitions on our ability to offer our product candidates in one or more jurisdictions as well as difficulties in manufacturing or continuing to develop our product candidates, and could materially damage our reputation, our ability to attract and retain employees, and our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

47

We face potential liability related to the privacy of health information we may obtain from our clinical trials.

Most healthcare providers are subject to privacy and security regulations promulgated under HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health, or HITECH, Act. We are not currently classified as a covered entity or business associate under HIPAA and thus are not subject to its requirements or penalties. However, any person may be prosecuted under HIPAA’s criminal provisions either directly or under aiding-and-abetting or conspiracy principles. Consequently, depending on the facts and circumstances, we could face substantial criminal penalties if we knowingly receive individually identifiable health information from a HIPAA-covered healthcare provider or research institution that has not satisfied HIPAA’s requirements for disclosure of individually identifiable health information. In addition, in the event that we receive sensitive personally identifiable information, including health information, we may be subject to state laws requiring notification of affected individuals and state regulators in the event of a breach of personal information, which is a broader class of information than the health information protected by HIPAA.

We cannot assure you that we, our CROs, our clinical trial sites, and our clinical trial principal investigators with access to personally identifiable and other sensitive or confidential information relating to the patients in our clinical trials will not breach contractual obligations, or that we or they will not experience data security breaches or attempts thereof, which could have a corresponding effect on our business, including putting us in breach of our obligations under privacy laws and regulations as discussed above, which could in turn adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. We cannot assure you that our contractual measures and our own privacy and security-related safeguards will protect us from the risks associated with the third-party processing, storage, and transmission of such information.

Compliance with global privacy and data security requirements could result in additional costs and liabilities to us or inhibit our ability to collect and process data globally, and the failure to comply with such requirements could subject us to significant fines and penalties, which may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, or prospects.

The regulatory framework for the collection, use, safeguarding, sharing, transfer, and other processing of information worldwide is rapidly evolving and is likely to remain uncertain for the foreseeable future. Globally, many jurisdictions have established their own data security and privacy frameworks. In the United States, there are a broad variety of data protection laws that are either currently in place or under way and a wide range of enforcement agencies at both the state and federal levels have the authority to review companies for privacy and data security concerns based on general consumer protection laws. The Federal Trade Commission, or FTC, and state Attorneys General have been aggressive in reviewing privacy and data security protections for consumers. New laws also are being considered at both the state and federal levels. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA, which went into effect on January 1, 2020 provides for civil penalties for violations, as well as a private right of action for data breaches that is expected to increase data breach litigation. Many other states are considering similar legislation. A broad range of legislative measures also have been introduced at the federal level. There also is the threat of consumer class actions related to these laws and the overall protection of personal data.

The data privacy laws in the EU have also been significantly reformed. The collection, use, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data regarding individuals in the EU, including personal health data, is subject to the GDPR, which took effect across all member states of the European Economic Area, or EEA, in May 2018. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, including requirements relating to processing health and other sensitive data, obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, providing notification of data breaches, and taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors. The GDPR has expanded the definition of personal data to include coded data and requiring changes to informed consent practices and more detailed notices for clinical trial patients and investigators. In addition, the GDPR also

48

imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the EU, including the United States and, as a result, increases the scrutiny that clinical trial sites located in the EEA should apply to transfers of personal data from such sites to countries that are considered to lack an adequate level of data protection, such as the United States. The GDPR also permits data protection authorities to require destruction of improperly gathered or used personal information or impose substantial fines for violations of the GDPR, which can be up to 4% of global revenues or €20 million, whichever is greater, and it also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. In addition, the GDPR provides that EU member states may make their own additional laws and regulations limiting the processing of personal data, including genetic, biometric, or health data.

Risks Relating to Our Intellectual Property

If we do not possess intellectual property rights covering our proprietary chRDNA genome-editing technology and our product candidates, we may not be able to block competitors or to compete effectively in our markets.

Our industry is subject to rapid technological change and our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain intellectual property protection in the United States and other jurisdictions with respect to our chRDNA platform technology and product candidates. We rely upon a combination of patents, owned by us or in-licensed from a third party, and trade secrets to protect our technology and product candidates. We seek to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and in other jurisdictions related to our genome-editing technologies and product candidates that are important to our business. We also rely on know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. If we are unable to obtain or maintain intellectual property protection with respect to our chRDNA genome-editing platform technology and product candidates, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects could be materially harmed.

The strength of patents in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical fields generally, and the genome-editing field in particular, involves complex legal and scientific questions and can be uncertain. For example, the scope of patent protection that will be available to us in the United States is uncertain. Changes in either the patent laws or their interpretation may diminish our ability to protect our intellectual property; obtain, maintain, defend, and enforce our intellectual property rights; and, more generally, could affect the value of our intellectual property or narrow the scope of our owned or in-licensed patents. With respect to both owned and in-licensed intellectual property, we cannot predict whether the patent applications we and our licensors are currently pursuing will issue as patents, whether the claims of any issued patents will provide sufficient protection, or whether, if these patents are challenged by our competitors, they will be found to be invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed.

The patent prosecution process is expensive, time-consuming, and complex, and we or our licensors may not be able to file, prosecute, maintain, enforce, or license all necessary or desirable patents at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner or in all jurisdictions. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development in time to obtain patent protection before public disclosures are made. Although we may enter into non-disclosure or confidentiality agreements with parties who may have access to patentable aspects of our research and development, such as our employees, collaborators, CMOs, consultants, CROs, clinical trial site investigators and personnel, and other third parties, any one of these parties may breach their confidentiality agreements and disclose innovations before we can file a patent application, thereby jeopardizing our ability to seek patent protection.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, requires compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment, and other similar provisions during the patent application process. The ultimate outcome of our pending patent applications is uncertain and the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued. Even as our patent applications, or those of our licensors, currently or in the future, issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful

49

protection, prevent competitors or other third parties from competing with us, dissuade companies from collaborating with us, or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Periodic maintenance fees on issued patents are also required to be paid over the lifetime of the patent. Although an inadvertent lapse can, in many cases, be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in the loss of patent rights. Noncompliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include, but are not limited to, failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, nonpayment of fees, failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents, and the like. In the event we experience noncompliance events that cannot be corrected and we lose our patent rights, competitors could enter the market, which would have a material adverse effect on our business.

Composition of matter patents for biological and pharmaceutical products, such as CAR-based cell therapy products, often provide a strong form of intellectual property protection as such patents provide protection without specifying any particular method of use or manufacture. Methods of use patents can protect particular applications of a product or the manufacturing of a product; however, such method claims do not prevent a competitor from using a product that is identical to our product for an indication that is outside the scope of the patented method of use or making a product that is identical to our product using a different method of manufacturing. Our allogeneic CAR-T and CAR-NK cell therapy product candidates do not contain our chRDNA genome-editing technology; rather, our chRDNAs are used in the manufacturing of our CAR-T and CAR-NK products. It is virtually impossible to determine whether a competitor has infringed our chRDNA patents in making their products. Thus, even if we obtain patent protection on certain aspects of our technologies, such protection may not be enough to block our competitors from entering the market.

We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.

Filing, prosecuting, maintaining, enforcing, and defending patents on our genome-editing technologies and product candidates in countries outside the United States is expensive. Prosecution of patent applications is often a longer process and patents may grant at a later date, and with a shorter term, than in the United States. The requirements for patentability differ in certain jurisdictions and countries. Additionally, the patent laws of some countries do not afford intellectual property protection to the same extent as the laws of the United States. For example, unlike patent law in the United States, patent law in most European countries and many other jurisdictions precludes the patentability of methods of treatment and diagnosis of the human body. Other countries may impose substantial restrictions on the scope of claims, limiting patent protection to specifically disclosed embodiments. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in major markets outside the United States, or from selling or importing products into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and may export otherwise infringing products to jurisdictions where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our products and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent such competition. Moreover, our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property rights may be adversely affected by unforeseen changes in intellectual property laws in various jurisdictions worldwide.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in enforcing and defending intellectual property rights in various jurisdictions globally. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets, and other intellectual property, particularly those relating to biotechnology products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our intellectual property rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our intellectual property rights in various jurisdictions globally could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly, could put related 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 file, and the damages or other

50

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 against competitors.

Many jurisdictions have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties if they are not practicing the patented technology. In addition, some countries limit the enforceability of patents against third parties, including government agencies. In these countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of such patent. If we or any of our licensors is forced to grant a license to third parties with respect to any patents relevant to our business, our competitive position may be impaired, and our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects may be adversely affected. Patent protection must be maintained on a country-by-country basis, which is an expensive and time-consuming process with uncertain outcomes. Accordingly, we may choose not to seek patent protection in certain jurisdictions or countries, and we will not have the benefit of patent protection in such jurisdictions or countries.

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

We may in the future be subject to claims that former employees, consultants, or other third parties have an interest in our patents or other intellectual property as an inventor, co-inventor, or owner of trade secrets. Although it is our policy to require our employees and consultants who may be involved in the conception or development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who conceives or develops intellectual property that we regard as our own or such party may breach the assignment agreement. We may have disputes arise from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates. Litigation may be necessary to obtain ownership or to defend against claims challenging inventorship. If we or our licensors fail in any such litigation, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, intellectual property or other proprietary information. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we or our licensors are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to our management and other employees, and such claims could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

The lives of our patents may not be sufficient to effectively protect our products and business.

Although various extensions may be available, the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. In most countries including the United States, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years after its first effective filing date. Our chRDNA genome-editing patents will expire in 2036, without any patent term extension. Even if patents covering our product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired for a product we may be open to competition from biosimilar or generic medications. In addition, although upon issuance in the United States the life of a patent can be increased based on certain delays caused by the USPTO, called patent term adjustments, or PTA, this increase can be reduced or eliminated based on certain delays caused by us during patent prosecution or if terminal disclaimers are filed over other co-owned patents or patent applications to avoid rejections based on obviousness-type double patenting. If we do not have sufficient patent life to protect our products, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects will be adversely affected.

We may not obtain patent term extension, or PTE, for any product candidates we develop.

Depending upon the timing, duration, and specifics of any FDA marketing approval of any product candidates we develop, our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited PTE under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Action of 1984, or Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent extension term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during clinical trials and the FDA regulatory review process. A PTE cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14

51

years from the date of product approval, only one patent may be extended, and only a patent with claims covering the approved biologic, a method for its approved indication, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. However, we may not be granted an extension because of, for example, failing to exercise due diligence during the clinical 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 the applicable requirements. Moreover, we may not receive PTE or we may receive less time than we requested. If we are unable to obtain PTE or if the term of any such PTE is less than we request, we will be unable to rely on our patent position to forestall the marketing of competing products following our patent expiration, and our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects could be materially harmed.

Changes to the patent law in the United States and other jurisdictions could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our genome-editing technologies and product candidates.

Patent reform legislation in the United States and other countries, including the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or Leahy-Smith Act, signed into law on September 16, 2011, and its implementation could increase the uncertainties around patent protection, costs, and the enforcement or defense of our patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. The Leahy-Smith Act included a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. Such provisions affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art, and provide more efficient and cost-effective avenues for competitors to challenge the validity of patents. In addition, the Leahy-Smith Act transformed the U.S. patent system from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system, effective on March 16, 2013. For small companies, such as ours, this means that we must file our patent applications earlier in our development process rather than relying on proving priority of invention and it is now easier and less costly for third parties to attack our patents, all of which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

There is uncertainty regarding the patentability of certain inventions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical areas. Recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court have either narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakened the rights of patent owners in particular situations. For example, in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that a “naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated,” and invalidated Myriad Genetics’ claims on isolated BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. To the extent that our claims relate to naturally occurring antibodies or proteins, these may be deemed to be directed to natural products or to lack an inventive concept above and beyond an isolated natural product, and a court may decide the claims are invalid under Myriad. Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. courts, the USPTO, and the relevant law-making bodies, as well as courts and patent offices in other countries, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that may weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future, which could have a material adverse effect on our existing patent portfolio and those of our licensors. Europe’s planned Unified Patent Court may present uncertainties for our ability to protect and enforce our patent rights against competitors in Europe. Although this new court is being implemented to provide more certainty and efficiency to patent enforcement throughout Europe, it will also provide our competitors with a new forum to use to centrally challenge our patents, rather than having to seek invalidity or non-infringement decisions on a country-by-country basis. Once the Unified Patent Court is established, it will be several years before the scope of patent rights that will be recognized and the strength of patent remedies that will be provided is known.

Third-party claims of intellectual property infringement may prevent or delay our ability to commercialize our product candidates.

The fields of genome editing and CAR-T and CAR-NK cell therapies are relatively new. No genome-edited products have been commercialized and there is ongoing patent litigation in the autologous CAR-T cell therapy space. Due to the widespread research and development that is taking place in these fields, including by us and our competitors, the intellectual property landscape is in flux and may remain uncertain for the

52

foreseeable future. There may be significant litigation and administrative proceedings that could affect our genome-editing technologies and product candidates. We have not, at this stage, performed any freedom-to-operate analyses on our product candidates to identify potential infringement risks.

Our commercial success depends upon our ability to develop, manufacture, market, and sell product candidates that we may develop or license and to use our proprietary technologies without infringing, misappropriating, or otherwise violating the intellectual property rights of third parties. The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications owned by third parties exist in the fields in which we are developing our product candidates. As industry, government, academia, and other biotechnology and pharmaceutical research expands and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our genome-editing technologies or product candidates may give rise to claims of infringement of the patent rights of others. We cannot guarantee that our genome-editing technologies, current and future product candidates, or the use or manufacture of such product candidates does not currently or will not in the future infringe third-party patents. There may be third-party patents with claims to compositions, methods of manufacture, or methods of use or treatment that could cover our current or future product candidates. It is possible that we may fail to identify relevant third-party patents or applications. Furthermore, publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Thus, we cannot be certain that we were the first to file any patent application related to our genome-editing technologies or product candidates. Furthermore, patent rights are granted jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction, and our freedom to practice certain genome-editing technologies, including our ability to research, develop, and commercialize our product candidates, may differ by country.

Numerous third-party U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications exist in the fields of CRISPR genome editing as well as the field of immuno-oncology, including those relating to CAR constructs and CAR-T and CAR-NK cell therapy compositions and methods of use. Our CB-010 product candidate, which is an allogeneic anti-CD19 CAR-T cell therapy for the treatment of relapsed or refractory B-NHL, uses Cas9 chRDNAs to insert the CD19-specific CAR into the T cell genome and for an additional edit. Numerous parties have intellectual property relating to RNA-guided Cas9 genome editing. See the risk factor below entitled “Our ability to continue to receive licensing revenues and to enter into new licensing arrangements related to the CRISPR-Cas9 CVC IP will be substantially impaired if the CVC IP is limited by administrative patent proceedings.” Our CB-011 product candidate, which is an allogeneic anti-BCMA CAR-T cell therapy to treat relapsed or refractory MM, and our CB-012 product candidate, which is an allogeneic anti-CD371 CAR-T cell therapy to treat relapsed or refractory AML, both use Cas12a chRDNAs to insert the CAR into the T cell genome and to make additional edits. We are aware of certain third-party patents assigned to the Broad Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the President and Fellows of Harvard University relating to CRISPR-Cas12a genome-editing systems (Cas12a was then referred to as Cpf1), which will expire in late 2035 assuming no patent term extension or adjustment. Additionally, we are aware of third-party patents assigned to the U.S. government relating to anti-BCMA CARs as well as nucleic acids encoding such CARs, vectors comprising these nucleic acids, and host cells expressing such CARs, which will expire in 2033 assuming no patent term extension or adjustment. We are also aware of several third-party patents relating to various CAR compositions, methods of use, and components, including specific co-stimulatory regions. There is ongoing patent litigation over various third-party CAR patents, and unexpired patents that survive such litigation could be asserted against us.

Third parties may assert that our product candidates infringe their patents, including those listed above. Under U.S. patent laws, conducting clinical trials and seeking regulatory approval in the United States for therapeutic products are generally not considered an act of infringement, and similar exemptions are present in other countries. Nevertheless, third parties may allege that the act of filing our BLA or conducting clinical trials is outside of the safe harbor provision for activities reasonably related to the development and submission of information to the FDA for regulatory approval, and third parties may, upon our regulatory filing, assert

53

infringement claims based on existing patents or patents that may be issued prior to our BLA filing, regardless of the merit of such claims. Even if we believe third-party intellectual property claims are without merit, there is no assurance that a court would find in our favor on questions of infringement, validity, enforceability, ownership, or priority. Patents in the United States by law enjoy a presumption of validity that can be rebutted only with evidence that is “clear and convincing,” a heightened standard of proof. In order to successfully challenge the validity of any such U.S. patent in federal court, we would need to overcome this presumption of validity, and there can be no assurance that a court of competent jurisdiction would invalidate the patent. A court of competent jurisdiction could hold that these third-party patents are valid, enforceable, and infringed, which could materially and adversely affect our ability to commercialize any product candidates we may develop, including CB-010, CB-011, CB-012, and CB-020, as well as any other product candidates or technologies covered by the asserted third-party patents.

If any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover our genome-editing technology used in the manufacturing of our product candidates or any product candidate itself or its indication, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize the product candidate unless and until we obtained a license under the applicable patents, or such patents expire, or are held to be not infringed, unpatentable, invalid, or unenforceable. We may not be able to obtain a license to the blocking patents, or the terms of the license may not be commercially viable. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors and other third parties access to the same intellectual property licensed to us, and it could require us to make substantial upfront, milestone, and royalty payments. 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 product candidates may be blocked or delayed, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

We could also be forced, including by court order, to cease manufacturing and commercializing any infringing product candidates. In addition, we could be found liable for significant monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees, if we are found to have willfully infringed the third-party patent. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of our management time and resources from our business.

We may be involved in lawsuits or other proceedings to enforce or protect our patents, the patents of our licensors, or our other intellectual property rights, which could be expensive, time-consuming, and unsuccessful.

Competitors may infringe our patents or our licensors’ patents or challenge the validity of our or our licensors’ patent rights. Even if our patents are unchallenged, they may not adequately prevent others from designing their products to avoid being covered by our claims. If the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications to our product candidates is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to develop, and threaten our or their ability to commercialize, our product candidates.

Litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims, with or without merit, is unpredictable and generally expensive and time-consuming and likely to divert significant resources from our core business, including distracting our management and scientific personnel from their normal responsibilities and generally harm our business. Additionally, a defendant could counterclaim that our patent is invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace, and there are numerous grounds upon which a third party can assert invalidity or unenforceability of a patent. Thus, suing a third party for patent infringement puts our patents at risk and we may choose not to take such actions, thus allowing a competitor to infringe our patents. Grounds for a validity challenge in a counterclaim could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements,

54

including lack of novelty, obviousness, or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. Thus, a court may decide that one or more of our patents is not valid or is unenforceable or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable, or interpreted narrowly and could put one or more of our pending patent applications at risk of not issuing, all of which could negatively impact our business. Even if we establish infringement in a legal proceeding against a third party, the court may decide not to grant an injunction against further infringing activity by the defendant and may only award money damages, which may or may not be an adequate remedy for us depending on the circumstances. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with U.S. patent litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during litigation.

Third parties may also raise similar claims of invalidity before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include inter partes review, or IPR, ex parte reexamination, and post grant review in the United States, and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions, including opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office, or EPO. Such proceedings could result in revocation or amendment to our patents, which potentially could result in our patents no longer protecting our genome-editing technologies or our product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business.

We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to adequately conduct such litigation or proceedings. 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. There can be no assurance that we will have sufficient financial or other resources for such litigation or proceedings, which may continue for several years. Accordingly, despite our efforts, we may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing or misappropriating or successfully challenging our intellectual property rights. In addition, if securities analysts or investors perceive litigation results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. There could be public announcements of the results of litigation or patent challenge hearings, motions, or other interim proceedings or developments, which also could affect the price of our stock. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing, or distribution activities. Any of the foregoing could allow third parties to develop and commercialize competing technologies and products and have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Our product candidates are biologics, and as such, we may enter into a settlement agreement with a biosimilar manufacturer seeking to market a product highly similar to our product; such a settlement agreement may be reviewed by the Federal Trade Commission, or FTC, and such review could result in a fine or penalty and substantial expense.

The FTC reviews patent settlement agreements between biologics companies and biosimilar manufacturers to evaluate whether these agreements include, among other things, anti-competitive reverse payments that slow or defeat the introduction of lower-priced medicines, including biosimilars. If we are faced with an FTC challenge of a settlement agreement with a biosimilar manufacturer, such challenge could impact how or whether we settle the case and, even if we strongly disagree with the FTC’s position, we could face a penalty or fine and substantial expense. Any litigation settlements we enter into with biosimilar manufacturers could also be challenged by third parties adversely affected by the settlement. These kinds of follow-on lawsuits, which may be class action suits, can be expensive and can continue over multiple years. If we were to face lawsuits of this nature, we may not be successful in defeating these claims and we may, therefore, be subject to large payment obligations, which we may not be able to satisfy in whole or in part.

55

Our rights to develop and commercialize our product candidates are subject to the terms and conditions of our licenses and assignments with third parties, and if we fail to comply with our obligations under these agreements, we could lose intellectual property rights and be subject to litigation from our licensors or assignors.

We license, or have taken assignment to, patents related to certain of our product candidates and genome-editing technologies from third parties. These licenses and assignments typically impose obligations on us, including diligence and payment obligations. If we fail to comply with our obligations under these agreements, our licensors and assignors may have the right to terminate our agreements, in which event we would not be able to commercialize any product that is covered by the patent rights at issue. Additionally, we may be subject to litigation for breach of these agreements. Moreover, if disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed, or taken assignment of, prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on commercially acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the product candidates or technologies covered by such patents, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects. In addition, intellectual property rights that we license in the future may include sublicenses under intellectual property owned by third parties, in some cases through multiple tiers. The actions of our licensors may therefore affect our rights to use our sublicensed intellectual property, even if we are in compliance with all of the obligations under our license agreements. Should our licensors or any of the upstream licensors fail to comply with their obligations under the agreements pursuant to which they obtain the rights that are sublicensed to us, or should such agreements be terminated or amended, our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates may be materially harmed.

Our chRDNA genome-editing patent family was developed under a three-year research collaboration between us and Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (now Corteva Agriscience), or Pioneer. Initially, this patent family was owned by Pioneer under the terms of the Amended and Restated Collaboration and License Agreement dated July 13, 2015, with Pioneer (then a DuPont company), or the Pioneer Agreement, and Pioneer granted us an exclusive license to the chRDNA patent family in the fields of human and animal therapeutics and research tools as well as a non-exclusive license in certain other fields outside a Pioneer field which consists of certain agricultural crops, specified microorganisms, a defined industrial bio field, and certain nutrition and health applications, which Pioneer field is known as the Pioneer Exclusive Field. Through an amendment to the Pioneer Agreement, dated December 18, 2020, Pioneer assigned the chRDNA patent family to us in exchange for an upfront payment and potential future milestones. As part of this amendment, Pioneer also granted a covenant not to sue for our licensees of our chRDNA technology under certain other Pioneer intellectual property (to which we already have a license that, in this situation, we cannot sublicense to licensees of our chRDNA technology in the field of human therapeutics) that might cover our chRDNA genome-editing technology, provided that we make the required payments. Thus, if we do not make such payments, our licensees could be sued by Pioneer, which could result in our licensees suing us for breach of contract.

Additionally, under the Pioneer Agreement, we licensed certain Pioneer background CRISPR-Cas9 intellectual property, particularly a patent family owned by Vilnius University and exclusively licensed to Pioneer, that we have sublicensed to several third parties as part of our CRISPR-Cas9 out-licensing program. Although the Vilnius patent family does not cover our chRDNA genome-editing technology or product candidates, if we were to materially breach the Pioneer Agreement and not cure such breach, Pioneer could terminate the Pioneer Agreement, which would expose us to possible lawsuits from a number of our sublicensees to the Vilnius University patent family.

For our CB-011 product candidate, an allogeneic anti-BCMA CAR-T cell therapy, we took assignment of an anti-BCMA single-chain variable fragment, or scFv, from ProMab Biotechnologies, Inc., or ProMab, under a Sales and Assignment Agreement, dated January 31, 2020, or the ProMab Agreement, as amended. Although we own the patent family that covers this scFv and its methods of use, in the event that we materially breach, and do not cure, the ProMab Agreement, ProMab could terminate the agreement and we would be required to immediately cease any and all manufacture, sale, offer for sale, use, import, or export of products comprising the anti-BCMA scFv (provided that, if our product is approved for commercial sale, we may sell any remaining

56

existing inventory of such products for a short period of time). If this were to happen prior to regulatory approval, we would not be able to continue the development of CB-011, and if this were to happen after regulatory approval, we would lose all future revenues from CB-011.

The scFv in our CB-012 product candidate, an allogeneic anti-CD371 CAR-T cell therapy, is exclusively licensed to us in this field by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, or MSKCC. To maintain the license, we are required to pay annual license fees and to meet certain diligence milestones within specified periods of time. We may extend these periods by a certain number of months upon payment of additional fees. In the event that we materially breach, and do not cure, the Exclusive License Agreement we entered into with MSKCC on November 13, 2020, or the MSKCC Agreement, MSKCC may terminate the MSKCC Agreement, in which case we would not be able to continue the development of CB-012.

Thus, we are reliant upon the above licenses to and assignments of certain intellectual property from third parties that is important or necessary to the development of our genome-editing technologies and product candidates. In spite of our best efforts, our licensors or assignors might conclude that we have materially breached our license or assignment agreements, respectively, and might terminate these agreements, thereby removing our ability to develop and commercialize products and technology covered by the agreements. To the extent such third parties fail to meet their obligations under these agreements, which we are not in control of, we may lose the benefits of the agreements. If these agreements are terminated, or if the underlying patents fail to provide the intended exclusivity, competitors could have the freedom to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, products identical to ours. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Disputes may arise with the third parties from whom we license or take assignment of our intellectual property rights from for a variety of reasons, including:

We may not be successful in obtaining or maintaining necessary rights to any future product candidates that we acquire through acquisitions or in-licenses.

Our future programs may involve additional product candidates that may require the use of intellectual rights held by third parties, and the growth of our business could depend, at least in part, on our ability to acquire or in-license these proprietary rights. We may be unable to acquire or in-license intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, which would harm our business. 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. In that event, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to develop or license other product candidates. We may need to cease development of a future product candidate covered by such third-party intellectual property rights.

The licensing and acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and companies that may be more established or have greater resources than we do may also be pursuing strategies to license or acquire

57

third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider necessary or attractive in order to develop product candidates. More established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, cash 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. There can be no assurance that we will be able to successfully complete such negotiations and ultimately acquire the rights to the intellectual property surrounding the additional product candidates or new genome-editing or other technologies that we may seek to acquire. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third party intellectual property rights, we may not be able to expand our product pipeline, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Our ability to continue to receive licensing revenues and to enter into new licensing arrangements related to the CRISPR-Cas9 CVC IP will be substantially impaired if the CVC IP is limited by administrative patent proceedings.

We have an exclusive license from The Regents of the University of California, or UC, and the University of Vienna, or Vienna, in all fields to a foundational CRISPR-Cas9 genome-editing patent family, the CVC IP, having as inventors Drs. Jennifer A. Doudna, Emmanuelle Charpentier, Martin Jinek, and Krzysztof Chylinski. We have entered into over 20 sublicenses, both exclusive and non-exclusive, to this CRISPR-Cas9 intellectual property in combination with licenses to our own Cas9 intellectual property (and sometimes in combination with a sublicense to the Vilnius Cas9 patent family we licensed from Pioneer) in a variety of fields (e.g., human cell therapy, microbial applications, agriculture, livestock, industrial biotechnology, nutrition and health, research reagents and services, forestry, transgenic animal models, internal research, etc.). Under the Exclusive License for Methods and Compositions for RNA-Directed Target DNA Modification and for RNA-Directed Modulation of Transcription we entered into with UC and Vienna on April 16, 2013, or the UC/Vienna Agreement, we are required to perform certain diligence activities, all but one of which we have timely achieved. We are currently in negotiations with UC/Vienna to extend the time period in which we must achieve this last milestone. We are also required to share with UC/Vienna a percentage of sublicensing revenue we receive including cash and equity. These sublicense agreements are an important source of revenues for us while we are developing our own product candidates. Furthermore, we must reimburse UC/Vienna for the patent prosecution and maintenance costs associated with the CVC IP, which are substantial in light of all the disputes outlined below.

The CVC IP that we have exclusively licensed from UC/Vienna is co-owned with Dr. Charpentier, and Dr. Charpentier has not granted us any rights to the CVC IP, either directly or indirectly. On December 15, 2016, we entered into a Consent to Assignments, Licensing and Common Ownership and Invention Management Agreement, or IMA, with UC, Vienna, Dr. Charpentier, CRISPR Therapeutics AG (the exclusive licensee of Dr. Charpentier in the field of human therapeutics), ERS Genomics Ltd (the exclusive licensee of Dr. Charpentier in all fields outside human therapeutics), and Intellia, our exclusive licensee in a defined field of human therapeutics. Under the IMA, the co-owners provided reciprocal worldwide cross-consents to each of the other co-owners’ existing licensees and sublicensees as well as future licensees and sublicensees, with no accounting to the other owners. The IMA includes a number of other commitments and obligations with respect to supporting and managing the CVC IP, including a cost-sharing agreement. In the United States, each co-owner has the freedom to license and exploit the technology. As a result, although our license from UC/Vienna is exclusive, we do not have any rights from Dr. Charpentier and thus our license to the CVC IP from UC/Vienna is non-exclusive with respect to such co-owned rights. Furthermore, in the United States, each co-owner is required to be joined as a party to any claim or action we may wish to bring to enforce those patent rights. Although we have entered into the IMA, which provides for, among other things, notice of and coordination in the event of third-party infringement of the patent rights within the CVC IP, there can be no assurance that all parties will cooperate in any future infringement. In addition, the parties to the IMA may dispute certain provisions and the resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement could increase what we believe to be our financial obligations to UC/Vienna.

The CVC IP is, and has been, the source of several disputes in the USPTO, the EPO, and other patent offices. At the time the CVC IP was first filed (May 25, 2012), the United States was under a first-to-invent patent system; thus, if two or more patent applications or one or more patents and one or more patent applications

58

claimed the same invention, the USPTO would determine the inventorship. Specifically, the Broad Institute Inc. and Massachusetts Institute of Technology and, in some instances, the President and Fellows of Harvard College, which we refer to individually and collectively as the Broad, owns a patent family (having an earliest filing date of December 12, 2012) that includes issued patents in the United States and Europe that claim certain aspects of CRISPR-Cas9 systems to edit DNA in eukaryotic (i.e., plant and animal) cells, including human cells. In January 2016, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, or PTAB, of the USPTO declared an interference (Interference No. 106,048, or the ’048 interference) between one of the then-pending U.S. patent applications (now U.S. Patent No. 10,266,850) included in the CVC IP and 12 issued U.S. patents owned jointly by the Broad to determine which set of inventors invented first and, thus, was entitled to patents on the invention in the United States. The PTAB concluded at the end of the motions phase that the declared interference should be discontinued (and not progress to the priority phase) because the involved claim sets were considered patentably distinct from each other. Following appeal by the CVC group, in September 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or CAFC, affirmed the PTAB’s decision to terminate the interference proceeding without determining which inventors actually invented the use of the CRISPR-Cas9 genome-editing technology in eukaryotic cells. In June 2019, the PTAB declared another interference (Interference No. 106,115, or the ’115 interference) between 14 pending U.S. patent applications in the CVC IP and 13 patents and a patent application co-owned by the Broad. The Broad patents include those that were the subject of the ’048 interference. In September 2020, the PTAB issued an order that, among other matters, advanced the proceeding to the priority phase, where the CVC group has the burden of proof to show that it was first to invent. The priority phase is nearly complete and we expect the PTAB to schedule a hearing and issue a decision in 2021. The PTAB’s decision may be appealed to the CAFC.

In addition to the Broad, ToolGen, Inc., MilliporeSigma (a subsidiary of Merck KGaA), and Harvard University, each filed patent applications claiming CRISPR-Cas9-related inventions after the CVC IP was first filed (October 23, 2012 in the case of ToolGen patent family; December 6, 2012 in the case of the MilliporeSigma patent family; and December 17, 2012 in the case of the Harvard University patent family) and have alleged (or may allege) that they invented one or more of the inventions claimed in the CVC IP before the CVC inventors did. If the USPTO deems the scope of the claims of one or more of these parties to sufficiently overlap with the allowable claims from the CVC IP, the PTAB may declare additional interference proceedings to determine the actual inventor of such claims. In December 2020, the PTAB declared an interference (Interference No. 106,127, or the ’127 interference) between a ToolGen patent application that claims certain aspects of CRISPR-Cas9 systems to edit DNA in eukaryotic cells, including human cells, and the same 14 pending U.S. patent applications in the CVC IP that are involved in the ’115 interference. This interference is currently in the motions phase. Additionally, the PTAB declared an interference (Interference No. 106,126) at the same time between the same ToolGen patent application and the Broad patents and patent application in the ’115 interference. In June 2021, the PTAB declared an interference (Interference No. 106, 132) between a MilliporeSigma patent application that claims methods for using CRISPR-Cas9 systems to edit DNA in eukaryotic cells, including human cells, and the same 14 pending U.S. applications in the CVC IP that are involved in the ‘115 and ‘127 interferences. Also in June 2021, the PTAB declared an interference (Interference No. 106,133) between the same MilliporeSigma patent application and the Broad patents and patent applications in the ‘115 and ‘126 interferences. Opposition proceedings in the EPO have been initiated against patents owned by the Broad, ToolGen, and MilliporeSigma, and various third parties have opposed the three issued CVC European patents. Opposition proceedings can lead to the revocation of a patent in its entirety, the maintenance of the patent as issued, or the maintenance of a patent in amended form, and opposition proceedings and appeals therefrom typically take years to resolve. These CRISPR-Cas9 patents are expected to expire in 2033.

In light of the uncertainty surrounding the CVC IP, certain third parties have negotiated royalty-stacking provisions in their sublicenses with us whereby they can deduct from what they owe to us a certain percentage of royalties they pay to other parties with CRISPR-Cas9 patents (such as to the Broad). Furthermore, other third parties have adopted a “wait and see” approach and are not entering into license agreements with us or third parties until all of the uncertainty surrounding inventorship and priority among the groups with CRISPR-Cas9 patents is resolved. In the event that patents in the CVC IP are invalidated, certain of our sublicensees may wish to renegotiate their license agreements with us, or may terminate for convenience. If this happens prior to commercialization of our own product candidates, we could lose a source of revenues while still remaining responsible for reimbursing UC for costs of prosecuting and maintaining the remaining CVC IP.

59

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, our business and competitive position will be harmed.

In addition to seeking patents for some of our technology and product candidates, we also rely on trade secrets and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary know-how that is not 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 is not covered by patents. Trade secrets and know-how can be difficult to protect.

We seek to protect these trade secrets and other proprietary technology, in part, by entering into non-disclosure or confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to them, such as our employees, collaborators, CMOs, CROs, clinical trial site personnel and investigators, consultants, and other third parties. We also enter into confidentiality and invention assignment agreements with our employees and our agreements with consultants include invention assignment obligations. We seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data, know-how, and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. Although we have confidence in these individuals, organizations, and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for such breaches. Monitoring unauthorized uses and disclosures is difficult, and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to protect our proprietary technologies will be effective. We cannot guarantee that our trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential information will not be disclosed or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets.

Despite these efforts, any of these parties may breach agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive, and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts both within and outside the United States may be less willing or unwilling to protect proprietary information and trade secrets. If a competitor lawfully obtains or independently develops any of our trade secrets, we will have no right to prevent such competitor from using such information to compete with us, which could harm our competitive position. If we are unable to prevent unauthorized material disclosure of our intellectual property to third parties, or misappropriation of our intellectual property by third parties, we may not be able to establish or maintain a competitive advantage in our markets, which could materially adversely affect our business, operating results, financial condition, and prospects. Additionally, it is possible that our genome-editing technology platform, our trade secrets, and our know-how will over time be disseminated within the industry through the publication of journal articles and the movement of personnel from our company into academia or into other companies that may be our competitors.

Furthermore, others may independently discover our trade secrets and proprietary information. For example, the FDA, as part of its Transparency Initiative, is currently considering whether to make additional information publicly available on a routine basis, including information that we may consider to be trade secrets or other proprietary information, and it is not clear at the present time how the FDA’s disclosure policies may change in the future, if at all. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor or other third party, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor or other third party, our competitive position would be materially and adversely harmed.

Intellectual property rights do not necessarily address all potential competitive threats.

The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights, whether through patents or trade secrets, is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations and may not adequately protect our business or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. For example:

60

Should any of these events occur, they could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

If our trademarks are not adequately protected, then we may not be able to build name recognition in our markets of interest and our business may be adversely affected.

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

Risks Relating to Our Relationships with Third Parties

We rely on third parties to supply the materials for, and the manufacturing of, our clinical supplies, and we may continue our reliance on third parties for manufacturing of our commercial products, if approved.

We currently do not have clinical-scale manufacturing capabilities, nor do we have any immediate plans to develop such capabilities; thus, we must rely on third-party contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, to manufacture clinical supplies for our product candidates. We currently rely on five different CMOs to supply materials to an additional CMO who manufactures the necessary CB-010 cell therapy product candidate materials for our ANTLER phase 1 clinical trial and we are engaging multiple suppliers and CMOs, and anticipate that we will need to engage additional suppliers and CMOs, for our clinical trials with our CB-011 and CB-012 product candidates as well.

We receive the chRDNA guides used for genome editing from one CMO, the Cas protein (Cas9 in the case of CB-010) from another CMO, the virus used to insert the CAR into the T cell genome from another CMO located outside the United States, and our healthy donor cells from two different sources owned by the same third party supplier. The virus CMO receives plasmid from another supplier used in the manufacture of the viral material. Another CMO uses all of these materials to manufacture the CAR-T products for our CB-010 clinical trial. Coordination is essential to ensure that the various materials are received by the CMO manufacturing the T cell products in time, and in the correct amounts, for manufacturing runs. The manufactured CAR-T products then undergo a series of release testing. There can be no assurance that we will not experience supply or manufacturing issues in the future; particularly, given our reliance on single-source suppliers, some of which are

61

small companies with limited resources and experience to support clinical, and ultimately commercial, products. We cannot ensure that these suppliers will remain in business or that they will not be purchased by one of our competitors or another company that is not interested in continuing to produce these materials for our intended purposes. In addition, the lead time needed to establish a relationship with a new supplier can be lengthy, and we may experience delays in meeting demand in the event we must switch to a new supplier or CMO. The time and effort to qualify a new supplier or CMO, including to meet any regulatory requirements for such qualification, could result in additional costs, diversion of resources, or reduced manufacturing yields, any of which would negatively impact our operating results. Furthermore, we may be unable to enter into agreements with a new supplier on commercially reasonable terms, which could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

If our CMOs and suppliers cannot successfully manufacture materials that conform to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or other regulatory authorities, they will not be able to secure or maintain regulatory approval for their manufacturing facilities. In addition, we have no direct control over the ability of our CMOs and suppliers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance, and corresponding maintenance of records and documents, or to hire and retain trained personnel. If the FDA or a foreign regulatory authority inspects these third-party facilities for compliance with regulations for the manufacture of materials or product candidates and, if these facilities fail inspection and cannot adequately correct deficiencies, we may need to find alternative CMOs, which would significantly impact our ability to develop and obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, and if approved, to market our products. In addition, if our CMOs and suppliers are unable to timely perform or have operations temporarily halted as a result of inspection or enforcement actions taken by the FDA or other regulatory authorities, or as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, we may experience manufacturing delays or delays in receiving healthy donor cells used in manufacturing our CB-010 product candidate or may need to find alternative CMOs or suppliers, which in each case would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for, and market our product candidates, if approved.

We do not yet have sufficient information to reliably estimate the cost of the commercial manufacturing of our product candidates, and the actual cost to manufacture and process our product candidates could materially and adversely affect the commercial viability of our product candidates. Our product candidates have not been manufactured at commercial scale, may not be able to achieve commercial manufacturing, and we may be unable to create a product inventory necessary to satisfy demands for any of our product candidates following approval. As a result, we may never be able to develop a commercially viable product.

In addition, our current reliance on a limited number of CMOs and suppliers exposes us to a variety of risks, each of which could delay our preclinical studies, clinical trials, the approval, if any, of our product candidates by the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities, or the commercialization of our product candidates or result in higher costs or deprive us of potential product revenue. Such risks include:

62

Our CMO that supplies the virus we use to insert the CAR into our CB-010 CAR-T product candidate is located outside the United States. To date, our virus CMO has not been audited by the FDA, but it has received the cGMP certification for the manufacture of recombinant viral vectors from an EU national regulatory authority. There are additional risks with using an ex-U.S. vendor, including:

For our allogeneic CAR-T product candidates, we rely on receiving healthy donor material to manufacture our product candidates. Variation in quality of donor T cells, and potential challenges in procuring appropriate donor material, could result in insufficient product supply or may result in us being unable to initiate or continue clinical trials on the timelines we expect.

Unlike autologous CAR-T companies, we are reliant on receiving healthy donor material to manufacture our product candidates. Healthy donor T cells vary in quality, and this variation requires us to release batches with the highest integrity based on specifications confirmed by regulatory authorities which makes producing standardized product candidates more likely, but this step may slow the development and commercialization

63

pathway of those product candidates if releasable batches are not identified sufficiently rapidly. We and our CMOs have developed a screening process designed to enhance the quality and consistency of T cells used in the manufacture of our CAR-T cell product candidates, but our screening process may fail to identify suitable donor material and we may discover failures with the material after production. We may also have to develop new testing methods and update our specifications for new risks, such as screening for new viruses. We have strict specifications for donor material, which include specifications required by regulatory authorities. If we are unable to identify and obtain donor material that satisfy specifications, agree with regulatory authorities on appropriate specifications, or address variability of donor T cells, there may be insufficient material or we may be unable to initiate or continue clinical trials on the timelines we expect, which could harm our reputation and adversely impact our business and prospects. In addition, some third-party suppliers have in the past been unable to secure donor material during the COVID-19 pandemic due to government restrictions on activity and travel, while others were able to provide material. While our suppliers are currently able to provide us with donor material, if the COVID-19 pandemic worsens and our suppliers are unable to secure donor material, we may no longer have sufficient donor material to manufacture our product candidates.

We rely and will continue to rely on third parties to conduct our clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval of or commercialize our product candidates.

We depend, and will continue to depend, on CROs, clinical trial sites and clinical trial principle investigators, contract laboratories, and other third parties to conduct our ANTLER phase 1 clinical trial for our CB-010 product candidate and future clinical trials for our other product candidates. We will rely heavily on these third parties over the course of our clinical trials, and we control only certain aspects of their activities. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our studies is conducted in accordance with the protocol and applicable legal, regulatory, and scientific standards and regulations, and our reliance on third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and these third parties are required to comply with current good clinical practices, or cGCPs, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for the conduct of clinical trials on product candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce cGCPs through periodic inspections and for-cause inspections of clinical trial principal investigators and trial sites. If we or any of these third parties fail to comply with applicable cGCP regulations or the protocol, or fail to enroll a sufficient number of patients, we may be required to conduct additional clinical trials to support our marketing applications, which would delay the regulatory approval process. Moreover, our business may be implicated if any of these third parties violates federal, state, or foreign fraud and abuse or false claims laws and regulations or healthcare privacy and security laws, or provide us or government agencies with inaccurate, misleading, or incomplete data.

Although we intend to design the clinical trials for our product candidates, our CROs will facilitate and monitor our clinical trials. As a result, many important aspects of our clinical development programs, including site and investigator selection, and the conduct and timing and monitoring of the study, will be partly or completely outside our direct control. Our reliance on third parties to conduct clinical trials will also result in less direct control over the collection, management, and quality of data developed through clinical trials than would be the case if we were relying entirely upon our own employees. Communicating with third parties can also be challenging, potentially leading to mistakes as well as difficulties in coordinating activities.

Any third parties conducting our clinical trials are not, and will not be, our employees and, except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such third parties, we cannot control whether they devote sufficient time and resources to our ongoing preclinical, clinical, and nonclinical programs. These third parties may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical studies or other drug development activities, which could affect their performance on our behalf. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols or regulatory requirements, or if there are other difficulties with such third parties, such as staffing difficulties, changes in priorities, or financial distress, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed, or

64

terminated. As a result, we may not be able to complete development of, obtain regulatory approval of, or successfully commercialize our product candidates. As a result, our financial results and the commercial prospects for our product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase, and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed.

If any of our relationships with trial sites, or any CRO that we may use in the future, terminates, we may not be able to timely enter into arrangements with alternative trial sites or CROs, or do so on commercially reasonable terms. Switching or adding clinical trial sites or CROs to conduct our clinical trials involves substantial cost and requires extensive management time, training, and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition lag when a new third party must learn about our product candidates and protocols, which can result in delays that may materially impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines.

We also are required to register certain ongoing clinical trials and post the results of completed clinical trials on a U.S. government-sponsored database, www.ClinicalTrials.gov, within certain timeframes. Failure to do so can result in fines, adverse publicity, and civil and criminal sanctions. Our ANTLER phase 1 clinical trial for our CB-010 product candidate is posted on www.ClinicalTrials.gov. For any violations of laws and regulations during the conduct of our preclinical studies and clinical trials, we could be subject to warning letters or enforcement action that may include civil penalties up to and including criminal prosecution.

We may not be able to meet our obligations under the AbbVie collaboration or our own product candidates and pipeline may be delayed in light of our obligations to AbbVie. In addition, we have limited control over the achievement of milestones by AbbVie.

We recently entered into a multi-year collaboration agreement under which we will utilize our Cas12a chRDNA genome-editing and cell therapy technologies to research and develop two new CAR-T cell therapies directed to targets specified by AbbVie. We are responsible for conducting certain preclinical research, development, and manufacturing activities, including assisting in the manufacturing of all phase 1 clinical materials and assisting AbbVie with the preparation and filing of its INDs. We and AbbVie have developed a detailed research plan and budget for the first of the two program slots. The collaboration will involve a substantial number of our employees and resources, although we will be reimbursed by AbbVie for our work on the collaboration. We have not previously undertaken a collaboration of this magnitude and focus. Although we have begun a hiring effort to increase our research and development group, it is not certain that we will be able to rapidly hire new, qualified employees, in which case the work on our pipeline products may be delayed until we are able to increase our staff such that we can meet our obligations under the AbbVie research plan and continue to develop our own product candidates. In addition, our ability to receive significant milestone payments upon AbbVie’s achievement of developmental, regulatory, and sales-based milestones is outside our control and is dependent on AbbVie’s commercially reasonable efforts to develop, commercialize, and manufacture the licensed collaboration products.

We may form or seek collaborations or strategic alliances in the future for the development and commercialization of one or more of our product candidates or for new product candidates. We may not be successful in such efforts and, even if we do enter into such collaborations, they may not be successful.

Our product candidate development programs and the potential commercialization of our product candidates will require substantial additional cash to fund expenses. To date, we have not partnered with a third party with respect to any of our product candidates. In the future, we may choose to partner one or more of our product candidates. If we are unable to negotiate and enter into partnerships, we may have to curtail the development of the product candidate for which we are seeking to collaborate, reduce or delay its development program or one or more of our other development programs, delay its potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we do not have sufficient funds, we may not be able to further develop our product candidates or bring them to market, if approved, and generate product revenue.

65

If we decide to collaborate with pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies for the development and potential commercialization of any of our product candidates, or new product candidates, we may not be able to negotiate collaborations for such product candidates on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all. We may also be restricted under existing agreements from entering into future collaborations. Collaborations are complex and time-consuming to negotiate and document. Whether we reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the potential collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the potential collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. Those factors may include the design or results of clinical trials, the likelihood of approval by FDA or comparable regulatory authorities outside the United States, the potential market for the subject product candidate or candidates, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering such product candidates to patients, the potential of competing biologics or other therapeutic approaches, the existence of uncertainty with respect to our ownership of technology, which can exist if there is a challenge to such ownership without regard to the merits of the challenge, and industry and market conditions generally. The potential collaborator may also consider alternative product candidates or technologies for similar indications that may be available to collaborate on and whether such a collaboration could be more attractive than one with us for our product candidate or for a new product candidate. In addition, there have been a significant number of recent business combinations among large pharmaceutical companies that have resulted in a reduced number of potential future collaborators. Thus, we may face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators.

Furthermore, the terms of any collaborations or other arrangements that we may establish may not be favorable to us. Even if we are able to enter into a collaboration, the following are some of the risks associated with doing so:

66

We may not realize the benefits of acquired assets or other strategic transactions.

We evaluate various strategic transactions on an ongoing basis. We may acquire other businesses, products or product candidates, intellectual property, or technologies as well as pursue joint ventures or investments in complementary businesses. The success of any future strategic transaction depends on the risks and uncertainties, including:

Foreign acquisitions and joint ventures are subject to additional risks, including those related to integration of operations across different cultures and languages, currency risks, potentially adverse tax consequences of overseas operations, and the particular economic, political, and regulatory risks associated with specific countries.

Future acquisitions or dispositions could result in potentially dilutive issuances of our equity securities, the incurrence of debt, contingent liabilities, or amortization expenses or write-offs of goodwill, any of which could harm our financial condition. We could also incur losses resulting from undiscovered liabilities that are not covered by the indemnification we may obtain from the seller.

67

If we in-license product candidates or products or acquire businesses, we may not be able to realize the benefit of such transactions if we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing operations and company culture. We cannot be certain that, following a strategic transaction or license, we will achieve the results, revenue, or specific net income that justifies the transaction. Future acquisitions or dispositions could result in potentially dilutive issuances of our equity securities, the incurrence of debt, contingent liabilities, or amortization expenses or write-offs of goodwill, any of which could harm our financial condition.

We may be subject to claims that our employees, consultants, or third parties performing services for us have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information of third parties.

Many of our employees were previously, and our consultants are or were previously, employed at universities or research institutions, or at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies. Although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants, and third parties performing services for us do not use the proprietary information or know-how of former employers or other companies in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or these individuals have used or disclosed confidential information or intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such individual’s current or former employer or other third party. 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 could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to our management and employees.

Risks Relating to Employee Matters, Managing Growth, and Other Risks Relating to Our Business

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

We are highly dependent on the research and development, clinical, operational, legal, financial, and other business expertise of our executive officers, including Rachel E. Haurwitz, Ph.D., our President and Chief Executive Officer; Steven B. Kanner, Ph.D., our Chief Scientific Officer; Barbara G. McClung, J.D., our Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary; and Jason V. O’Byrne, M.B.A., our Chief Financial Officer; as well as other members of our senior leadership team and our scientists. Certain of our scientists have greatly contributed to our intellectual property and are critical as we move our chRDNA technology platform forward. Although we have entered into employment agreements with all of our executive officers, each of them may terminate their employment with us at any time. All of our employees are “at will,” which means that any of our employees could leave our employment at any time, with or without notice. We maintain “key person” insurance for Dr. Haurwitz but the amount of insurance is modest. We do not maintain “key person” insurance for any of our other executive officers or employees.

We conduct substantially all of our operations at our facility in Berkeley, California. The San Francisco Bay Area is headquarters to many other biopharmaceutical companies and many academic and research institutions. Competition for skilled personnel in our industry is intense and may limit our ability to hire and retain highly qualified personnel on acceptable terms, if at all. Many of the biotechnology companies and research institutions that we compete against for qualified personnel and consultants have greater financial and other resources, different risk profiles, and a longer history in the industry than we do. Recruiting and retaining qualified research, development, manufacturing, regulatory, and clinical personnel is critical to our success. Our success also depends on our ability to continue to attract, retain, and motivate entry-level, mid-level, and senior scientific personnel as well as managers. We may not be able to attract and retain these personnel on acceptable terms given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, as well as academic and research institutions, for similar personnel. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain high-quality personnel and consultants, the rate and success at which we can discover and develop product candidates and operate our business will be limited.

68

To induce employees to remain at our company, in addition to salary and cash incentives, we have provided stock options that vest over time. The value to employees of stock options that vest over time may be significantly affected by movements in our stock price that are beyond our control and may at any time be insufficient to counteract more lucrative offers from other companies.

In addition, we rely on consultants and advisors, including our co-founders and scientific advisory board, or SAB, to assist us in formulating our research and development and commercialization strategy. Our consultants and advisors, including Drs. Jennifer A. Doudna and Martin Jinek who are among our founders and who are pioneers in CRISPR genome-editing technology, are not employed by us, 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.

The inability to recruit or retain certain executive officers, key employees, consultants, or advisors may impede the progress of our research, development, and commercialization objectives and have a material adverse effect on our business, intellectual property, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

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 July 12, 2021 we had 76 full-time employees, and we expect to continue to increase our number of employees and the scope of our operations in 2021 and beyond as we seek to advance development, and if successful, commercialization, of our product candidates. 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. Current and future growth imposes significant added responsibilities on members of management, including:

Also, our management may need to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from their day-to-day activities and devote a substantial amount of time to managing these expansion 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 our remaining employees. The physical expansion of our operations may lead to significant costs and may divert financial resources from other projects, such as the development of our product candidates. If our management is unable to effectively manage this expected 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 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.

69

Our internal computer systems, or those of our third-party vendors, collaborators, consultants, or third parties performing services for us, may fail or suffer security breaches, which could result in a material disruption of the development of our product candidates and program research, compromise sensitive information related to our business, or prevent us from accessing critical information, potentially exposing us to liability or otherwise adversely affecting our business.

Our internal computer systems and those of our current and any future third-party vendors, collaborators, consultants, and third parties performing services for us, as well as our clinical sites and regulatory authorities, are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, and telecommunication and electrical failures. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has intensified our dependence on information technology systems as many of our critical business activities are currently being conducted remotely.

Although we have not experienced any such material system failure, accident, or security breach to date, if such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a disruption of our product candidate development and our business operations, whether due to a loss of our trade secrets or other proprietary information or other similar disruptions. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from our current or future clinical trials 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 security breach were to result in the theft or destruction of intellectual property, data, or other misappropriation of assets; financial loss; or otherwise compromise our confidential or proprietary information and disrupt our operations, our competitive position could be harmed, and the further development and commercialization of our product candidates could be delayed.

We could be subject to risks caused by misappropriation, misuse, leakage, falsification, or intentional or accidental release or loss of information maintained in the information systems and networks of our company, our third-party vendors, and clinical sites, including personal information of our employees and, potentially, our clinical study patients, and company and vendor confidential data. In addition, third parties may attempt to penetrate our systems or those of our vendors or fraudulently induce our personnel or the personnel of our vendors to disclose sensitive information in order to gain access to data and systems. We may experience threats to our data and systems, including malicious codes and viruses, phishing, and other cyber-attacks. The number and complexity of these threats continue to increase over time. If a material breach of our information technology systems or those of our vendors occurs, the market perception of the effectiveness of our security measures could be harmed and our reputation and credibility could be damaged. We could be required to expend significant amounts of money and other resources to repair or replace information systems or networks.

In addition, we could be subject to regulatory actions or claims made by individuals and groups in private litigation involving privacy issues related to data collection and use practices and other data privacy laws and regulations, including claims for misuse or inappropriate disclosure of data, as well as unfair or deceptive practices. Although we develop and maintain systems and controls designed to prevent these events from occurring, and we have a process to identify and mitigate threats, the development and maintenance of these systems, controls, and processes is costly and requires ongoing monitoring and updating as technologies change and efforts to overcome security measures become increasingly sophisticated.

Moreover, despite our efforts, the possibility of these events occurring cannot be eliminated entirely. As we outsource more of our information systems to vendors, engage in more electronic transactions with clinical sites and collaborators, and rely more on cloud-based information systems, the related security risks will increase and we will need to expend additional resources to protect our technology and information systems. In addition, there can be no assurance that our internal information technology systems, or those of third parties with which we conduct business, will be sufficient to protect us against breakdowns, service disruption, data deterioration, or loss in the event of a system malfunction, or prevent data from being stolen or corrupted in the event of a cyberattack, security breach, industrial espionage attacks, or insider threat attacks, which could result in financial, legal, business, or reputational harm.

70

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

We are exposed to the risk of fraud or other misconduct by our employees, clinical trial principal investigators, and consultants. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional failures to comply with FDA regulations or the regulations applicable in other jurisdictions, to provide accurate information to the FDA and other regulatory authorities, to comply with healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations in the United States and in other jurisdictions, to report financial information or data accurately, or to disclose unauthorized activities to us. Such misconduct could involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials or interactions with the FDA or other regulatory authorities, which could result in regulatory sanctions and cause serious harm to our reputation. We may also be subject to federal, state, and foreign laws governing the privacy and security of identifiable patient information. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws that apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal, and administrative penalties. If we commercialize our products, sales, marketing, 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 restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs, and other business arrangements.

We have adopted a code of conduct applicable to all of our employees, but it is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent misconduct may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from government 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, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects, including the imposition of civil, criminal, and administrative penalties; damages; monetary fines’ contractual damages; reputational harm; and curtailment of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, 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 harm our business; additionally, our business could be shut down until we are in compliance with such laws and regulations.

We are subject to numerous federal, state, and local 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 materials. Our operations also produce hazardous waste products. We contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We will not be able to eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from any use by us of hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties for failure to comply with such laws and regulations. In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health, and safety laws and regulations. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our product candidate development and research program efforts.

Moreover, there is increasing stakeholder pressure on companies to diligence environmental, social, and governance matters in the supply chain. Negative publicity regarding production methods, alleged practices, or workplace or related conditions of any of our suppliers, CMOs, CROs, or third parties who perform services for us could adversely affect our reputation and force us to locate alternatives, which could increase our costs and result in delayed supply of components for, and manufacturing of, our product candidates, or other disruptions to our operations.

71

Our insurance policies are expensive and only protect us from some business risks, which may leave us exposed to certain uninsured liabilities.

Although we have obtained product liability insurance coverage for our clinical trials, it may not be adequate to cover all expenses or liabilities that we may incur. Furthermore, we anticipate that we will need to increase our insurance coverage if we successfully commercialize any product candidate. Product insurance coverage is increasingly expensive, and we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in an amount adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise. Once, and if, we obtain marketing approval for a product candidate, we intend to acquire product liability insurance coverage for our commercial products; however, we may be unable to obtain such product liability insurance on commercially reasonable terms or in adequate amounts. Our insurance policies may also have various exclusions, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. Additionally, we may have to pay amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient capital to pay such amounts. Many of our license agreements require us to indemnify our licensors or licensees against certain third-party claims; we may not have insurance for such indemnifications or our insurance may be inadequate should any claim arise.

We also expect that operating as a public company will make it more difficult and more expensive for us to maintain and increase our levels of directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, and we may be required to accept reduced policy limits and coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain the same or similar coverage. Any significant uninsured liability may require us to pay substantial amounts, which would adversely affect our cash position and results of operations. As a result, it may be more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified people to serve on our board of directors, our board committees, or as executive officers.

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

We will face an inherent risk of product liability exposure related to the testing of our product candidates in human clinical trials and will face an even greater risk if such product candidates receive marketing approval and are sold commercially. For example, we may be sued if our product candidates cause or are perceived to cause injury or are found to be otherwise unsuitable during clinical testing, manufacturing, marketing, or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability, or a breach of warranties. Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against claims that our product candidates caused injuries, we could incur substantial liabilities. Even a successful defense would require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

72

As a public company, we are obligated to develop and maintain proper and effective internal controls over financial reporting, and any failure to maintain the adequacy of these internal controls may adversely affect investor confidence in our company and, as a result, the value of our common stock.

We will be required, pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, to furnish a report by management on, among other things, the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2022, which is the year covered by the second annual report following the completion of our initial public offering. This assessment will need to include disclosure of any material weaknesses identified by our management in our internal controls over financial reporting. In addition, our independent registered public accounting firm will be required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting in our first annual report required to be filed with the SEC following the date we are no longer an emerging growth company if we are not a non-accelerated filer at such time.

If we are unable to conclude that our internal controls over our financial reporting are effective, or if our independent registered public accounting firm determines we have a material weakness in our internal controls over financial reporting, we could lose investor confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports, the market price of our common stock could decline, and we could be subject to sanctions or investigations by the SEC or other regulatory authorities. Failure to remedy any material weakness or significant deficiency in our internal controls over financial reporting, or to implement or maintain other effective control systems required of public companies, could also restrict our future access to the capital markets.

Our effective tax rate may fluctuate, and we may incur obligations in tax jurisdictions in excess of amounts accrued on our financial statements.

In addition to federal income tax, we are subject to taxation in various state and local tax jurisdictions. As a result, our effective tax rate is derived from a combination of applicable tax rates in the locations in which we operate. In preparing our financial statements, we estimate the amount of tax that will become payable in each jurisdiction using rates based on prior experience. Nevertheless, our effective tax rate may be different than what we have experienced in the past due to numerous factors, including the passage of new tax legislation, changes in the mix of our profitability, if any, from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, the results of examinations and audits of our tax filings, our inability to secure or sustain acceptable agreements with tax authorities, and changes in tax laws. Any of these factors could cause us to experience an effective tax rate significantly different from previous periods and may result in tax obligations in excess of amounts accrued in our financial statements.

Our ability to use our net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes may be limited.

We have generated, and expect to continue to generate in the future, significant federal and state net operating loss, or NOL, carryforwards that are available to offset taxable income in future years, if any. We have also generated, and expect to continue to generate in the future, significant federal and state research and development tax credit carryforwards that are available to potentially offset federal income taxes and state income taxes, respectively, in future years, if any.

Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, or TCJA, as modified by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act, or the CARES Act, our federal NOLs incurred in taxable years beginning after

73

December 31, 2017 may be carried forward indefinitely. Additionally, for tax years beginning after December 31, 2020, the deductibility of federal NOLs incurred in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 is limited to 80% of our taxable income. Also, NOLs incurred in 2018, 2019, and 2020 may be carried back five taxable years. It is uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to the NOL changes contained in the TCJA and the CARES Act. Federal research and development credit carryforwards may only be carried forward for 20 years and therefore could expire unused. As a result, they may be unavailable to offset future taxes.

In addition, under Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, which we refer to as the Tax Code, and corresponding provisions of state law, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change,” which is generally defined as a greater than 50 percentage point change, by value, in its equity ownership by certain stockholders over a rolling three-year period, the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change NOL carryforwards and other pre-change tax attributes (such as research and development tax credits) to offset its post-change income or taxes may be limited. A Section 382 analysis was performed for the period June 1, 2012 through March 31, 2021, which concluded that we did not experience any “ownership change” during any rolling three-year period occurring within this period, and we have a full valuation allowance for deferred tax assets, including NOLs. However, the completion of this offering, together with private placements and other transactions that have occurred in the past 36 months, may trigger such an ownership change. Furthermore, we may experience one or more ownership changes in the future as a result of this offering and subsequent shifts in our stock ownership, some of which may be outside our control. In addition, at the state level, there may be periods during which the use of NOL carryforwards is suspended or otherwise limited, which could accelerate or permanently increase state taxes owed. For example, California recently imposed limits on the use of California state NOLs and tax credits to offset California taxable income in years beginning after 2019 and before 2023. If an ownership change occurs and we earn taxable income in future years, the limitation on our ability to use our NOLs and other tax attribute carryforwards could adversely affect our future operating results by increasing our future income tax liabilities.

The COVID-19 pandemic may in the future adversely impact our business, financial condition, and results of operations, including our preclinical studies and clinical trials, and may cause substantial disruption in the financial markets and adversely impact economies worldwide.

Public health crises such as pandemics or other outbreaks could adversely impact our business. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and any future pandemics, and governmental responses to such pandemics, we may in the future experience disruptions that could severely impact our business, preclinical studies, clinical trials, and commercialization activities, including:

74

State and local government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic have included “shelter in place,” “stay at home,” and similar types of orders. Beginning the week of March 16, 2020, the majority of our workforce began working from home. All of our lab workforce has returned to on-site work; however, our corporate and administrative personnel are still mostly working remotely. The effects of the stay-at-home orders and our work-from-home policies may negatively impact productivity, disrupt our business, and delay our regulatory and clinical timelines for our product candidates, the magnitude of which will depend, in part, on the length and severity of the restrictions and other limitations on our ability to conduct our business in the ordinary course. We may take further actions that alter our operations as may be required by federal, state, or local authorities, or which we determine are in the best interests of our employees. The COVID-19 pandemic continues to evolve. The extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic may impact our business, research, preclinical studies and clinical trials, productivity of our employees, supply chains, and access to capital or business development activities will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence. To the extent the COVID-19 pandemic adversely affects our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects, it may also have the effect of amplifying many of the other risks described in this “Risk Factors” section, such as those relating to the timing and results of our current and future clinical trials and our financing needs.

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

In addition to the business disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic or potential cybersecurity attacks, our operations, and those of our suppliers, CMOs, CROs, and clinical trial sites, could be subject to disruptions, including those caused by earthquakes, power shortages or outages, telecommunications failures, water shortages or outages, floods, hurricanes, typhoons, fires, extreme weather conditions, epidemics and pandemics, and other natural or man-made disasters or business interruptions. The occurrence of any of these business disruptions could seriously harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects, and increase our costs and expenses. Our ability to manufacture our product candidates could be disrupted if our operations or those of our suppliers, CMOs, CROs, or clinical trial sites are affected by a natural or man-made

75

disaster or other business interruption. Our corporate headquarters are located in California near major earthquake faults and fire zones. The ultimate impact on us and our general infrastructure of being located near major earthquake faults and fire zones and being consolidated in certain geographical areas is unknown, but our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects could suffer in the event of a major earthquake, fire, or other natural disaster. Furthermore, our preclinical work involves studies in mice. In the past, vivarium sites have been shut down by animal activists and any disturbance or shut down at sites where our preclinical work is being conducted could jeopardize our data and affect our product candidate timelines.

Furthermore, we interact with the FDA and other federal, state, and regulatory agencies, and lack of funding for such agencies or temporary shut-downs can affect our operations. Over the last several years, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, and has had to furlough critical government employees and stop critical activities. 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; statutory, regulatory, and policy changes; and business disruptions, such as those caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions for our product candidates, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Unfavorable global economic conditions could adversely affect our business, financial condition, or results of operations.

Our results of operations could be adversely affected by general conditions in the global economy and in the global financial markets. A severe or prolonged economic downturn, or additional global financial crises, could result in a variety of risks to our business, including weakened demand for our product candidates, if approved, or our ability to raise additional capital when needed on acceptable terms, if at all. A weak or declining economy could also strain our suppliers and CMOs, possibly resulting in supply or manufacturing disruption. Any of the foregoing could harm our business and we cannot anticipate all of the ways in which such conditions could adversely impact our business.

Risks Relating to this Offering and Ownership of our Common Stock

We do not know whether a market will develop for our common stock or what the market price of our common stock will be and, as a result, it may be difficult for our stockholders to sell shares of our common stock.

Before this offering, there was no public trading market for our common stock. Although we have applied to list our common stock on the Nasdaq Global Select Market, an active trading market for our shares may never develop or be sustained following this offering. If a market for our common stock does not develop or is not sustained, it may be difficult for holders of our common stock to sell shares of our common stock at an attractive price, if at all.

You will incur immediate and substantial dilution as a result of this offering.

If you purchase common stock in this offering, you will incur immediate and substantial dilution of $9.02 per share, representing the difference between the assumed initial public offering price of $15.00 per share, the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, and our pro forma net tangible book value per share after giving effect to this offering and the automatic conversion of all outstanding shares of our preferred stock upon the closing of this offering. Moreover, we have issued options in the past that allow the holders to acquire common stock at prices significantly below the assumed initial public offering price. As of July 12, 2021, there were 5,080,046, shares subject to outstanding options with a weighted-average exercise price of $3.33 per share. To the extent that these outstanding options are ultimately exercised or the underwriters exercise their option to purchase additional shares, you will experience further dilution.

76

The market price of our common stock may be volatile, which could result in substantial losses for investors purchasing shares in this offering.

The initial public offering price for our common stock was determined through negotiations between us and the underwriters. The market price of our common stock following the offering may vary significantly from the initial public offering price. As a result, you may not be able to sell your common stock at or above the initial public offering price. Some of the factors that may cause the market price of our common stock to fluctuate include:

77

In recent years, the stock market in general, and the market for pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in particular, has experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to changes in the operating performance of the companies whose stock is experiencing those price and volume fluctuations, including recently in connection with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Broad market and industry factors, including potentially worsening economic conditions and other adverse effects or developments, may seriously affect the market price of our common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance. These fluctuations may be even more pronounced in the trading market for our stock shortly following this offering. Following periods of such volatility in the market price of a company’s securities, securities class action litigation has often been brought against that company. Because of the potential volatility of our stock price, we may become the target of securities litigation in the future. Securities litigation could result in substantial costs and divert our management’s attention and resources from our business.

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. Even if we do obtain analyst coverage, 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.

A significant portion of our total outstanding shares is, and will be, restricted from immediate resale following this offering, but may be sold into the market in the near future, which could cause the market price of our common stock to decline significantly, even if our business is doing well.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market could occur at any time. These sales, or the perception in the market that the holders of a large number of shares of common stock intend to sell shares, could reduce the market price of our common stock. After this offering and after giving effect to the conversion of all outstanding shares of our preferred stock into 26,234,654 shares of our common stock upon the closing of this offering, we will have 51,209,191 shares of common stock outstanding, or 53,234,191 shares if the underwriters exercise their option to purchase additional shares in full, in each case based on the 37,709,191 shares of our common stock outstanding as of July 12, 2021. Of these shares, the 13,500,000 shares (or 15,525,000 shares if the underwriters exercise their option to purchase additional shares in full) we are selling

78

in this offering may be resold in the public market immediately. The remaining 37,709,191 shares will be restricted under securities laws or as a result of lock-up (which may be waived, with or without notice, by BofA Securities, Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., and SVB Leerink LLC at any time) or other agreements, but may be sold after this offering as described in the “Shares Eligible for Future Sale” section of this prospectus, unless held by one of our affiliates, in which case the resale of those securities will be subject to volume limitations and other restrictions under Rule 144 of the Securities Act. Moreover, after this offering, holders of an aggregate of 26,621,668 shares of our common stock will have rights, subject to certain conditions, to require us to file registration statements covering their shares or to include their shares in registration statements that we may file for ourselves or other stockholders in the future. We also plan to register all shares of common stock that we may issue under our equity compensation plans or that are issuable upon exercise of outstanding options. Once we register these shares, they can be freely sold in the public market upon issuance and, once vested, subject to volume limitations applicable to our affiliates and the lock-up agreements described in the “Underwriting” section of this prospectus. If any of these additional shares 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.

Insiders will continue to have substantial influence over us after this offering, which could limit your ability to affect the outcome of key transactions, including a change of control.

After this offering, our directors and executive officers and our stockholders who owned more than 5% of our outstanding common stock before this offering will beneficially own shares representing approximately 38% of our outstanding common stock (assuming no exercise of the underwriters’ option to purchase an additional 2,025,000 shares of our common stock). As a result, these stockholders, if they choose to act together, will be able to influence our management and affairs and all matters requiring stockholder approval, including the election of directors and approval of significant corporate transactions.

Some of these persons or entities may have interests different than yours. For example, because many of these stockholders purchased their shares at prices substantially below the current market price of our common stock and have held their shares for a longer period, they may be more interested in selling our company to an acquirer than other investors, or they may want us to pursue strategies that deviate from the interests of other stockholders.

We are an “emerging growth company” and the reduced disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies may make our common stock less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act, and may remain an emerging growth company for up to five years following this offering. For as long as we remain an emerging growth company, we are permitted and plan to rely on exemptions from certain disclosure requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies. These exemptions include not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, not being required to comply with any requirement that may be adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or PCAOB, regarding mandatory audit firm rotation or a supplement to the auditor’s report providing additional information about the audit and the financial statements, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation, and exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and stockholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. As a result, the information we provide stockholders will be different than the information that is available with respect to some other public companies. In this prospectus, we have not included all of the executive compensation related information that would be required if we were not an emerging growth company. We cannot predict whether investors will find our common stock less attractive if we 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.

In addition, the JOBS Act provides that an emerging growth company can take advantage of an extended transition period for complying with new or revised accounting standards. This allows an emerging

79

growth company to delay the adoption of certain accounting standards until those standards would otherwise apply to private companies. We have elected to use this extended transition period for complying with new or revised accounting standards that have different effective dates for public and private companies until the earlier of the date that we (i) are no longer an emerging growth company or (ii) affirmatively and irrevocably opt out of the extended transition period provided in the JOBS Act. As a result, our consolidated financial statements and interim condensed consolidated financial statements may not be comparable to companies that comply with the new or revised accounting pronouncements as of public company effective dates.

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

As a public company, and particularly after we are no longer an “emerging growth company,” we will incur significant legal, accounting, and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the listing requirements of the Nasdaq Global Select Market, and other applicable securities rules and regulations impose various requirements on public companies, including establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and corporate governance practices. We expect that we will need to hire additional accounting, finance, legal, and other personnel in connection with our becoming, and our efforts to comply with the requirements of being, a public company, and our management and other personnel will need to devote a substantial amount of time towards maintaining compliance with these requirements. These requirements will increase our legal and financial compliance costs and will make some activities more time-consuming and costly. In addition, we expect that the rules and regulations applicable to us as a public company may make it more difficult and more expensive for us to obtain directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, which could make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified members of our board of directors or executive officers.

After this offering, we will be subject to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the related rules of the SEC, which generally require our management and independent registered public accounting firm to report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. Beginning with the second annual report that we will be required to file with the SEC, Section 404 requires an annual management assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. However, for so long as we remain an emerging growth company as defined in the JOBS Act, we intend to take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to public companies that are not emerging growth companies, including, but not limited to, not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404. Once we are no longer an emerging growth company or, if prior to such date, we opt to no longer take advantage of the applicable exemption, we will be required to include an opinion from our independent registered public accounting firm on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting.

During the course of our review and testing, we may identify deficiencies and be unable to remediate them before we must provide the required reports. Furthermore, if we identify any material weaknesses, we may not detect errors on a timely basis and our financial statements may be materially misstated. We or our independent registered public accounting firm may not be able to conclude on an ongoing basis that we have effective internal control over financial reporting, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects; cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information; and cause the trading price of our stock to fall. In addition, as a public company we will be required to file accurate and timely quarterly and annual reports with the SEC under the Exchange Act. In order to report our results of operations and financial statements on an accurate and timely basis, we will depend in part on third parties to provide timely and accurate notice of their costs to us. Any failure to report our financial results on an accurate and timely basis could result in sanctions, lawsuits, delisting of our shares from the Nasdaq Global Select Market, or other adverse consequences that would materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

80

We will have broad discretion in the use of the net proceeds from this offering and may not use them effectively.

We cannot specify with certainty the particular uses of the net proceeds we will receive from this offering. Our management will have broad discretion in the application of the net proceeds, including for any of the purposes described in “Use of Proceeds.” Accordingly, you will have to rely upon the judgment of our management with respect to the use of the proceeds, with only limited information concerning management’s specific intentions. Our management may spend a portion or all of the net proceeds from this offering in ways that our stockholders may not desire or that may not yield a favorable return. The failure by our management to apply these funds effectively could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Pending their use, we may invest the net proceeds from this offering in a manner that does not produce income or that loses value.

Participation in this offering by our existing principal stockholders or their affiliated entities may reduce the public float for our common stock.

To the extent our existing principal stockholders or their affiliated entities participate in this offering, such purchases may reduce the non-affiliate public float of our shares, meaning the number of shares of our common stock that are not held by our executive officers, directors, and principal stockholders. A reduction in the public float could reduce the number of shares that are available to be traded at any given time, thereby adversely impacting the liquidity of our common stock and depressing the price at which you may be able to sell shares of common stock purchased in this offering.

We do not expect to pay any dividends for the foreseeable future. Investors in this offering may never obtain a return on their investment.

You should not rely on an investment in our common stock to provide dividend income. We do not anticipate that we will pay any dividends to holders of our common stock in the foreseeable future. Instead, we plan to retain any earnings to maintain and expand our existing operations. In addition, any future credit facility may contain terms prohibiting or limiting the amount of dividends that may be declared or paid on our common stock. Accordingly, investors must rely on sales of their common stock after price appreciation, which may never occur, as the only way to realize any return on their investment. As a result, investors seeking cash dividends should not purchase our common stock.

Provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, our amended and restated bylaws, and Delaware law may have anti-takeover effects that could discourage an acquisition of us by others, even if an acquisition would be beneficial to our stockholders, and may prevent attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, amended and restated bylaws, and Delaware law contain provisions that may have the effect of discouraging, delaying, or preventing a change in control of us or changes in our management that stockholders may consider favorable, including transactions in which you might otherwise receive a premium for your shares. Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and bylaws, which will become effective upon the closing of this offering, include provisions that:

81

These provisions, alone or together, could delay or prevent hostile takeovers and changes in control or changes in our management. These provisions could also limit the price that investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock, thereby depressing the market price of our common stock.

In addition, because we are incorporated in the State of Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, or DGCL, which prohibits a person who owns in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock from merging or combining with us for a period of three years after the date of the transaction in which the person acquired in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock, unless the merger or combination is approved in a prescribed manner.

Any provision of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, amended and restated bylaws, or Delaware law that has the effect of delaying or deterring a change in control could limit the opportunity for our stockholders to receive a premium for their shares of our common stock, and could also affect the price that some investors are willing to pay for our common stock.

As a California-domiciled public company, we will be required to have at least two or three women and at least one director from an underrepresented community on our board of directors by the end of 2021, depending on the size of our board at the time.

Our success depends in part on our continued ability to attract, retain, and motivate highly qualified individuals to our board of directors. As a public company headquartered in California, we will be required to have two or three women on our board of directors by the end of 2021, depending on the size of our board of directors at the time. We will be also required to have at least one director from an underrepresented community by the end of 2021 and to have two or three directors from an underrepresented community by the end of 2022, depending on the size of our board of directors at the time. While we currently have two women on our board of directors, recruiting and retaining board members carries uncertainty, and failure to comply with this California requirement could result in financial penalties.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and the federal district courts of the United States of America will be the exclusive forums for substantially all disputes between us and our stockholders, which could limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or our directors, executive officers, or employees.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware is the exclusive forum for the following types of actions or proceedings under Delaware statutory or common law:

82

This provision would not apply to suits brought to enforce a duty or liability created by the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, or the Exchange Act. Furthermore, Section 22 of the Securities Act creates concurrent jurisdiction for federal and state courts over all such Securities Act actions. Accordingly, both state and federal courts have jurisdiction to entertain such claims. To prevent having to litigate claims in multiple jurisdictions and the threat of inconsistent or contrary rulings by different courts, among other considerations, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation further provides that the federal district courts of the United States of America will be the exclusive forum for resolving any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act. Although the Delaware courts have determined that such choice of forum provisions are facially valid, a stockholder may nevertheless seek to bring a claim in a venue other than those designated in the exclusive forum provisions. In such instance, we would expect to vigorously assert the validity and enforceability of the exclusive forum provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation. This may require significant additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions and there can be no assurance that the provisions will be enforced by a court in those other jurisdictions.

This exclusive forum provision may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or our directors, executive officers, or other employees, which may discourage lawsuits against us and our directors, executive officers, and other employees. If a court were to find the exclusive forum provision in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur further significant additional costs associated with resolving the dispute in other jurisdictions, all of which could seriously harm our business.

83