Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington D.C. 20549

​

FORM 10-K

​

​

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020

​

OR

​

​

For the transition period from                to                

​

Commission file number: 001-36294

​

uniQure N.V.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

​

The Netherlands

(Jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)

​

Paasheuvelweg 25a,

1105 BP Amsterdam, The Netherlands

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

​

+31-20-240-6000

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act.)   Yes ☐ No ⌧

​

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting ordinary shares held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of June 30, 2020 was $2,002.7 million, based on the closing price reported as of June 30, 2020 on the NASDAQ Global Select Market.

​

As of February 25, 2021, the registrant had 44,993,987 ordinary shares, par value €0.05, outstanding.

​

The documents incorporated by reference are as follows:

​

Portions of the registrant's definitive Proxy Statement for its 2021 Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission no later than April 30, 2021 and to be delivered to shareholders in connection with the 2021 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, are herein incorporated by reference in Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

​

​

​

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

SPECIAL CAUTIONARY NOTICE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

​

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains “forward-looking statements” as defined under federal securities laws. Forward-looking statements are based on our current expectations of future events and many of these statements can be identified using terminology such as “believes,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “plans,” “may,” “will,” “projects,” “continues,” “estimates,” “potential,” “opportunity” and similar expressions. These forward-looking statements, which include, but are not limited to, statements related to the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic, our collaboration and license agreement with CSL Behring LLC and the timing of the completion of the transactions contemplated thereby, our beliefs about our competitive advantage and the capabilities of our manufacturing facility, our cash runway,  the advancement of our clinical trials, our intellectual property portfolio, and the impact of regulatory actions on our regulatory submission timelines, may be found in Part I, Item 1 “Business,” Part 1, Item 1A “Risk Factors,” Part II, Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and other sections of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

​

Forward-looking statements are only predictions based on management’s current views and assumptions and involve risks and uncertainties, and actual results could differ materially from those projected or implied. The most significant factors known to us that could materially adversely affect our business, operations, industry, financial position or future financial performance include those discussed in Part I, Item 1A “Risk Factors,” as well as those discussed in Part II, Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, as well as other factors which may be identified from time to time in our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), or in the documents where such forward-looking statements appear. You should carefully consider that information before you make an investment decision.

You should not place undue reliance on these statements, which speak only as of the date that they were made. Our actual results or experience could differ significantly from those anticipated in the forward-looking statements and from historical results, due to the risks and uncertainties described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K including in “Part I, Item 1A. “Risk Factors,” as well as others that we may consider immaterial or do not anticipate at this time. These cautionary statements should be considered in connection with any written or oral forward-looking statements that we may make in the future or may file or furnish with the SEC. We do not undertake any obligation to release publicly any revisions to these forward-looking statements after completion of the filing of this Annual Report on Form 10-K to reflect later events or circumstances or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events. All forward-looking statements attributable to us are expressly qualified in their entirety by these cautionary statements.

In addition, with respect to all our forward-looking statements, we claim the protection of the safe harbor for forward-looking statements contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

​

Table of Contents

Summary Risk Factors

An investment in our ordinary shares involves significant risks. You should carefully consider the information set forth under “Risk Factors” before deciding to invest in our ordinary shares. The following is a summary of the principal risks associated with an investment in our ordinary shares:

Table of Contents

​

​

​

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Unless earlier terminated as described below, the CSL Behring Agreement will continue on a country-by-country basis until expiration of the royalty term in a country. The royalty term expires in a country on the later of (a) 15 years after the first commercial sale of the Product in such country, (b) expiration of regulatory exclusivity for the Product in such country and (c) expiration of all valid claims of specific licensed patents covering the Product in such country. Either we or CSL Behring may terminate the CSL Behring Agreement for the other party’s material breach if such breach is not cured within a specified cure period. In addition, if CSL Behring fails to commercialize the Product in any of a group of major countries for an extended period of time following the first regulatory approval of the Product in any of such group of countries (other than due to certain specified reasons) and such failure has not been cured within a specified cure period, then we may terminate the CSL Behring Agreement. CSL Behring may also terminate the CSL Behring Agreement for convenience.

The effectiveness of the transactions contemplated by the CSL Behring Agreement is contingent on completion of review under antitrust laws in the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom, and certain provisions of the CSL Behring Agreement will not become effective until after we receive all such regulatory approvals.

On November 11, 2020, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (“ACCC”) determined, pursuant to section 50 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 of Australia, that it will not intervene in the CSL Behring Agreement. Thus, the ACCC has completed its review of the CSL Behring Agreement, and the transactions contemplated by the CSL Behring Agreement may close from the perspective of the Australian competition authority.

On November 24, 2020, the Competition and Markets Authority in the United Kingdom (the “CMA”) adopted a decision not to refer the CSL Behring Agreement for proceedings under section 33 of the Enterprise Act 2002 of the United Kingdom. The decision was made public by the CMA on January 6, 2021. Thus, the CMA has completed its review of the CSL Behring Agreement, and the transactions contemplated by the CSL Behring Agreement may close from the perspective of the United Kingdom competition authority.

On December 3, 2020, we and CSL Behring filed a premerger notification and report form under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (the “HSR Act”). On January 4, 2021, the United States Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued to us a request for additional information and documentary material (a “Second Request”) under the HSR Act. The FTC similarly issued a Second Request to CSL Behring also with respect to the antitrust review of the CSL Behring Agreement. The effect of the Second Request is to extend the waiting period imposed under the HSR Act until 30 days after all parties to the CSL Behring Agreement have substantially complied with the requests unless the waiting period is terminated earlier by the FTC or voluntarily extended by the parties. We do not believe that the FTC will determine that the consummation of the transaction will result in a violation of the HSR Act. However, there can be no assurance as to the outcome of the Second Request.

Closing of the transaction is expected to materially impact our profitability and cash flows. Receipt of the $450.0 million payment due on closing would extend the funding of our operations into the second half of 2024 (assuming a full repayment of funds borrowed from Hercules Capital Inc. (“Hercules”) under our term loan facility by 2023). However, we expect to continue to incur losses and to generate negative cash flows beyond the fiscal year in which we would close the transaction.

Hemophilia B program – Etranacogene dezaparvovec (AMT-061)

Etranacogene dezaparvovec is our lead gene therapy candidate and includes an Adeno-associated virus (“AAV”) serotype 5 (together “AAV-5”) vector incorporating the functional human Factor IX (“FIX”) Padua variant. We are currently conducting a pivotal study in patients with severe and moderately-severe hemophilia B.

Table of Contents

In August 2018, we initiated a Phase IIb dose-confirmation study of etranacogene dezaparvovec and in September 2018, we completed the dosing for that study. In February, May, July, and December 2019, and in December 2020, we presented updated data from the Phase IIb dose-confirmation study of etranacogene dezaparvovec. The most recent data that we announced from the Phase IIb study of etranacogene dezaparvovec show that all three patients experienced increasing and sustained FIX levels after a one-time administration of etranacogene dezaparvovec. Mean FIX activity was 44.2% of normal two years after administration, exceeding threshold FIX levels generally considered sufficient to significantly reduce the risk of bleeding events. The first patient achieved FIX activity of 44.7% of normal, the second patient was 51.6% of normal and the third patient was 36.3% of normal. The second and third patients had previously screen-failed and were excluded from another gene therapy study due to pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to a different AAV vector. At two years after dosing, two of the three participants remain free from bleeds and use of FIX replacement therapy. A single bleed has been reported in one participant, who has used a total of two FIX infusions (excluding surgery). All patients have remained free of prophylaxis in the two years since receiving etranacogene dezaparvovec.

In June 2018, we initiated the six-month lead-in period of our Phase III HOPE-B pivotal trial of etranacogene dezaparvovec (the “HOPE-B trial”). The HOPE-B trial is a multinational, multi-center, open-label, single-arm study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of etranacogene dezaparvovec. After the six-month lead-in period, patients received a single intravenous administration of etranacogene dezaparvovec. Patients enrolled in the HOPE-B trial were tested for the presence of pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to AAV5 but not excluded from the trial based on their titers.

The primary endpoints of the study are based on the FIX activity level achieved following the administration of etranacogene dezaparvovec after 26 weeks and 52 weeks after dosing as well as annualized bleed rates during the 52 weeks after dosing.

In March 2020, we completed dosing of the 54 patients in the HOPE-B trial. The targeted number of patients to be dosed per the clinical trial protocol was 50. As set forth below, we have implemented and continue to implement various measures to allow us to closely monitor the trial within the guidance provided by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) regarding the impact of the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic (“COVID-19”) to minimize any risk or disruption in patient follow-up visits.

In December 2020, we announced top-line data from the HOPE-B trial. The 26-week follow-up date from the trial showed that FIX activity in the 54 patients increased after dosing from ≤ 2% to a mean of 37.2% at 26 weeks, meeting a first primary endpoint of the HOPE-B trial. No correlation between pre-existing neutralizing antibodies and FIX activity was found in patients with neutralizing antibody titers up to 678.2, a range expected to include more than 95% of the general population; one patient with a neutralizing antibody titer of 3,212.3 did not show an increase in FIX activity. Less than 1% of the general population is expected to have neutralizing antibody titers of greater than 3,000.

During the 26-week period after dosing, 15 patients (28%) reported a total of 21 bleeding events, representing a reduction of 83% compared to the 123 bleeding events reported by 38 patients (70%) during the observational lead-in phase of the trial. Total bleeds include any bleeding event reported after the treatment of etranacogene dezaparvovec, including spontaneous, traumatic, and those associated with unrelated medical procedures, whether or not FIX treatment was required. Of the total bleeding events reported during the 26-week period after dosing, only three were classified as spontaneous bleeds requiring treatment, representing a reduction of 92% compared to the 37 such bleeding events reported during the observational lead-in phase. Mean annualized usage of FIX replacement therapy, a secondary endpoint in the clinical trial, declined by 96% during the 26-week period after dosing compared to the observational lead-in phase. Etranacogene dezaparvovec was generally well-tolerated. As of the November 2020 cut-off date, most adverse events were classified as mild (81.5%). The most common events included transaminase elevation treated with steroids per protocol (9 patients; 17%), infusion-related reactions (7 patients; 13%), headache (7 patients; 13%) and influenza-like symptoms (7 patients; 13%). Liver enzyme elevations resolved with a tapering course of corticosteroids and FIX activity remained in the mild range in the steroid treated patients. No relationship between safety and neutralizing antibody titers was observed. Based on interactions with the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”), we plan to incorporate FIX activity and bleeding rates at 52 weeks as additional co-primary endpoints in the study.

Table of Contents

On December 21, 2020, our clinical trials of etranacogene dezaparvovec, including our HOPE-B trial, were placed on clinical hold by the FDA. The clinical hold was initiated following the submission of a safety report in mid-December relating to a possibly related serious adverse event associated with a preliminary diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (“HCC”), a form of liver cancer, in one patient in the HOPE-B trial that was treated with etranacogene dezaparvovec in October 2019. The patient has multiple risk factors associated with HCC, including a twenty-five-year history of hepatitis C (“HCV”), hepatitis B virus (“HBV”), evidence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and advanced age. Chronic infections with hepatitis B and C have been associated with approximately 80% of HCC cases.

The liver lesion was detected during a routine abdominal ultrasound conducted as part of the required study assessments in patients at one-year post dosing. A surgical resection of the lesion has occurred, and an analysis of the tissue samples was initiated in early 2021. On February 19, 2021, we reported initial results from this analysis to the FDA in accordance with pharmacovigilance requirements. We are gathering final data from these molecular analyses and will be preparing a detailed response to the FDA’s clinical hold questions regarding this event. Currently, we do not have adequate data to determine a possible causal relationship, especially in the context of the other known risk factors. We currently do not anticipate any impact on our regulatory submission timelines, including the filing of a BLA.

No other cases of HCC have been reported in our clinical trials conducted in more than 67 patients in hemophilia B, with some patients dosed more than 5 years ago.

Etranacogene dezaparvovec has been granted Breakthrough Therapy Designation by the FDA and access to the current priority medicines (“PRIME”) initiative by the EMA.

Huntington’s disease program (AMT-130)

AMT-130 is our novel gene therapy candidate for the treatment of Huntington’s disease. AMT-130 utilizes our proprietary, gene-silencing miQURE platform and incorporates an AAV vector carrying an miRNA specifically designed to silence the huntingtin gene and the potentially highly toxic exon 1 protein fragment. AMT-130 has received orphan drug and Fast Track designations from the FDA and Orphan Medicinal Product Designation from the EMA.

In June 2020, we announced the completion of the first two patient procedures in the Phase I/II clinical trial of AMT-130 for the treatment of Huntington’s disease. These procedures occurred after a postponement that resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated states of emergency declarations in the United States. The Phase I/II protocol is a randomized, imitation surgery-controlled, double-blinded study conducted at three surgical sites, and multiple referring, non-surgical sites in the U.S. The primary objective of the study is to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of AMT-130 at two doses.

On September 25, 2020, we announced that the independent Data Safety Monitoring Board (“DSMB”) overseeing the Phase I/II clinical trial of AMT-130 for the treatment of Huntington’s disease had met and reviewed 90-day safety data from the first two patients enrolled in the trial. No significant safety concerns were noted to prevent further dosing.

On October 13, 2020, we announced the completion of the third and fourth patient procedures in the Phase I/II clinical trial.

On February 8, 2021, we announced that the DSMB had met and reviewed the six-month safety data from the first two enrolled patients and the 90-day safety data from the next two enrolled patients in the study. No significant safety concerns were noted to prevent further dosing, and the final six patients in the first cohort are now cleared for enrollment.

BMS collaboration

We and Bristol-Myers Squibb (“BMS”) entered into a collaboration and license agreement in May 2015 (“BMS CLA”). BMS had initially designated four Collaboration Targets in 2015 and in accordance with the terms of the BMS CLA could have designated a fifth to tenth Collaboration Target.

In February 2019, BMS requested a one-year extension of the initial research term. In April 2019, following an assessment of the progress of this collaboration and our expanding proprietary programs, we notified BMS that we did not intend to agree to an extension of the initial research term. Accordingly, the initial four-year research term under the collaboration terminated on May 21, 2019.

Table of Contents

On December 1, 2020, we and BMS amended the BMS CLA (“amended BMS CLA”). Following the amendment BMS is no longer entitled to designate a fifth to tenth Collaboration Target and as such we are no longer entitled to receive an aggregate $16.5 million in target designation payments for research, development, and regulatory milestone payments related to the fifth and tenth Collaboration Targets. For a period of one-year from the effective date of the amended BMS CLA, BMS may replace up to two of the four active Collaboration Targets with two new targets in the field of cardiovascular disease. We continue to be entitled to receive up to $217.0 million for each of the four Collaboration Targets if defined milestones are achieved, as well as royalties on net sales associated with any Collaboration Target. On December 17, 2020, BMS designated one of the four Collaboration Targets as a candidate to advance into IND-enabling studies entitling us to receive a $4.4 million research milestone payment. We recorded the $4.4 million as License Revenue in the twelve-month period ended December 31, 2020.

The amended BMS CLA does not extend the initial research term. BMS may place purchase orders to provide limited services primarily related to analytical and development efforts in respect of the four Collaboration Targets. BMS may request such services for a period not to exceed the earlier of (i) the completion of all activities under a Research Plan and (ii) either (A) three years after the last replacement target has been designated by BMS during the one-year replacement period following the amended BMS CLA effective date or (B) three years if no replacement targets are designated during this one-year period and BMS continues to reimburse us for these services.

For as long as any of the four Collaboration Targets are being advanced, BMS may place a purchase order to be supplied with research, clinical and commercial supplies. Subject to the terms of the amended BMS CLA, BMS has the right to terminate the research, clinical and commercial supply relationships, and has certain remedies for failures of supply, up to and including technology transfer for any such failure that otherwise cannot be reasonably resolved. Both we and BMS may agree to a technology transfer of manufacturing capabilities pursuant to the terms of the amended BMS CLA.

We have agreed to certain restrictions on our ability to work independently of the collaboration, either directly or indirectly through any affiliate or third party, on certain programs that would be competitive with a Collaboration Target. We have agreed to indication exclusivity for the current four Collaboration Targets. BMS may add or change the exclusive indications in the process of replacing Collaboration Targets as described above. We can opt out of the indication exclusivity by giving up certain economic rights under the amended BMS CLA for each such indication that is affected by us opting out. If we opt out of an exclusive indication, we could pursue other targets for such indication other than a Collaboration Target.

The amended BMS CLA also terminated two warrants to increase BMS ownership in the Company up to 19.9% through purchasing a specific number of our ordinary shares following the designation of a seventh, and a tenth Collaboration Target, respectively. We and BMS agreed that upon the consummation of a change of control transaction of uniQure that occurs prior to the earlier of (i) December 1, 2026 and (ii) BMS’ delivery of a target cessation notice for all four Collaboration Targets, uniQure (or its third party acquirer) shall pay to BMS a one-time, non-refundable, non-creditable cash payment of $70.0 million, provided that (x) if $70.0 million is greater than five percent of the net proceeds (as contractually defined) from such change of control transaction, the payment shall be an amount equal to five percent of such net proceeds, and (y) if $70.0 million is less than one percent of such net proceeds, the change of control payment shall be an amount equal to one percent of such net proceeds. We have not consummated any change of control transaction as of December 31, 2020 that would obligate us to make a payment to BMS.

The amended BMS CLA did not change any of the provisions of the Investor Agreement with BMS that we entered into in 2015. We have granted BMS certain registration rights that allow BMS to require us to register our securities beneficially held by BMS under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”). BMS may make up to two such demands for us to register the shares, provided that we may deny such demand if (i) the market value of the shares to be registered is less than $10.0 million (provided however, if BMS holds less than $10.0 million worth of our shares, we must comply with their demand for registration), (ii) we certify to BMS that we plan to effect a registration within 120 days of their demand or we are engaged in a transaction that would be required to be disclosed in a registration statement and that is not reasonably practicable to be disclosed at that time, or (iii) we have already effected one registration statement within the twelve months preceding BMS’s demand for registration. In addition, independent of their demand registration rights, upon the occurrence of certain events, we must also provide BMS the opportunity to include their ordinary shares in any registration statement that we effect.

Table of Contents

We also continue to grant BMS certain information rights under the Investor Agreement, although these requirements may be satisfied by our public filings required by U.S. securities laws.

BMS also continues to be subject to a lock up pursuant to the Investor Agreement for as long as BMS holds more than 4.9% of our ordinary shares (as of December 31, 2020 BMS holds 5.3%). Without our prior consent, BMS may not sell or dispose any of its current ordinary shares.

The Investor Agreement also continues to require BMS to vote all of our ordinary shares it beneficially holds in favor of all items on the agenda for the relevant general meeting of shareholders of our company as proposed on behalf of our company, unless, in the context of a change of control or similar transaction, BMS has itself made an offer to our company or our board in connection with the transaction that is the subject of the vote, in which case it is free to vote its shares at its discretion. This voting provision will terminate upon the later of the date on which BMS no longer beneficially owns at least 4.9% of our outstanding ordinary shares, the closing of a transaction that provides BMS exclusive and absolute discretion to vote our shares it beneficially holds, or the termination of the amended BMS CLA for breach by us.

Term loan facility

As of December 31, 2020, a $35.0 million term loan was outstanding in accordance with the Second Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement (“2018 Amended Facility”) between us and Hercules.

On January 29, 2021 we and Hercules entered into amendments to the 2018 Amended Facility (the “2021 Amended Facility”). Pursuant to the 2021 Amended Facility, Hercules agreed to make additional term loans in the maximum aggregate amount of $100.0 million (the “2021 Term Loan”), increasing the aggregate principal amount of the term loan facility from $35.0 million to up to $135.0 million. On January 29, 2021 we drew down $35.0 million of the 2021 Term Loan. We may draw down the remaining $65.0 million under the 2021 Term Loan in a series of one or more advances of not less than $20.0 million each until December 15, 2021. Advances under the 2021 Term Loan bear interest at a rate equal to the greater of (i) 8.25% or (ii) 8.25% plus the prime rate, less 3.25% per annum. The principal balance and all accrued but unpaid interest on advances under the 2021 Term Loan is due on June 1, 2023, which date may be extended by us by up to two twelve-month periods. Advances under the 2021 Term Loan may not be prepaid until six-months after the Closing Date, following which we may prepay all such advances without charge.

In addition to the 2021 Term Loan, the amendment also extends the interest only payment period of the previously funded $35.0 million term loan from January 1, 2022 to June l, 2023.

COVID-19 measures

The coronavirus disease (“COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (“Sars-CoV 2 virus) was characterized as a pandemic by the World Health Organization (“WHO”) on March 11, 2020. During late 2020 various, potentially more infectious, variants of the Sars-CoV 2 virus causing COVID-19 were identified.

Starting March 2020, we implemented measures to address the impact of COVID-19 on our business. We mandated a work-from-home policy for all non-essential employees at our Amsterdam and Lexington facilities when the pandemic began. We implemented a series of protocols governing the operations of our Lexington facility to comply with the requirements of the various orders and guidance from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and other related orders, guidance, laws, and regulations. We supported our employees in setting up a healthy and efficient remote working environment. In conjunction with implementing this policy, we accelerated the roll-out of several information technology security measures, such as dual factor authentication, to address the increased risks to which we might be exposed as a result of remote working conditions. In addition, we conducted awareness training around cybersecurity for critical functions involved in making payments to vendors such as finance and supply chain. We continue to monitor local government rules and recommendations and office protocols will be aligned with these rules and recommendations.

We conduct frequent status video-meetings of local management at our two sites as well as leadership-team video meetings to implement these measures and to monitor the evolving situation. In addition, we inform our employees through periodic newsletters and have organized virtual local and global townhalls to share information and provide direction and support to our employees.

Table of Contents

We started to reopen the Amsterdam and Lexington facilities in phases, in line with the reopening plans that are prescribed by the local government. Between June 1, 2020 until September 29, 2020, we encouraged our Amsterdam employees to work a minimum of two days per week from the office, and approximately 50% of local staff worked on site during that period. As of September 29, 2020, we reinstated the mandatory work-from-home policy that was initiated in March in Amsterdam to align with the updated Dutch government’s measures. Employees based in Amsterdam who cannot perform their duties outside of our Amsterdam facility will continue to work at our Amsterdam facility. We adapted to operate our laboratories at our Amsterdam site to comply with social distancing rules and to ensure the health and wellbeing of our employees under the current circumstances. All other employees in Amsterdam will work from home through at least the end of August 2021, partly in conjunction with the ongoing expansion of our laboratory space.

As a biopharma research and development company, we were deemed to provide essential services under the “stay at home” advisory that was issued by the Governor of Massachusetts on March 23, 2020 and we therefore have maintained our manufacturing operations at our Lexington site. To ensure adequate social distancing in our Lexington facility, our COVID-19 protocols generally have limited occupancy to numbers below those allowed by the Massachusetts COVID-19 guidelines. In our Lexington facility, we currently have implemented an occupancy limitation of approximately 25%. Our employees that cannot perform their duties outside of our Lexington facility continue to work at our Lexington facility. All other employees are required to work remotely to the extent possible through at least the end of the second quarter of 2021. Our actual occupancy at the Lexington facility has been less than approximately 25% of our permitted occupancy during all phases of the Massachusetts reopening plan. We have also implemented a mandatory COVID-19 PCR testing protocol effective February 11, 2021 that requires employees to have tested negative for COVID-19 prior to entering the Lexington facility.

We have adapted our ongoing clinical research activities based on the directions and flexibility provided by the “FDA Guidance on Conduct of Clinical Trials of Medical Products during COVID-19 Pandemic” issued on March 18, 2020 and updated throughout the pandemic to minimize any risk, disruption, or delay in either patient dosing or follow-up visits. These procedures occurred after a postponement that resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated states of emergency declarations in the United States.

The broader implications of COVID-19 on our results of operations and overall financial performance remain uncertain. The COVID-19 pandemic and its adverse effects have become more prevalent in the locations where we, and our third-party business partners conduct business. While we have experienced disruptions in our operations as a result of COVID-19, we are adapting to the current environment to minimize the effect to our business. However, we may experience more pronounced disruptions in our operations in the future.

Organization

On September 14, 2020, we appointed Ricardo Dolmetsch, Ph.D. as President, Research and Development. Dr. Dolmetsch succeeded Sander van Deventer, M.D., Ph.D., our former Executive Vice President, Research and Product Development. On October 14, 2020, our Chief Medical Officer, Robert Gut, M.D., Ph.D., resigned to allow him to return as a non-executive director on our Board of Directors. Dr. Gut was appointed to our Board of Directors as a non-executive director at an extraordinary meeting of shareholders on December 1, 2020.

On June 17, 2020, our shareholders voted to approve the appointment of Leonard E. Post, Ph.D. as a non-executive director of the Board of Directors. Dr. Post replaced Dr. David Schaffer, whose term as a non-executive director of the Board of Directors ended on the same date. Dr. Post has also assumed the role of chair of our Research & Development Committee of the Board of Directors.

Table of Contents

Our Mission and Strategy

Our mission is to build an industry-leading, fully integrated, and global company that leverages its validated technology and manufacturing platform to deliver transformative gene therapy products to patients with serious unmet medical needs.

Our strategy to achieve this mission is to:

Advance the development of etranacogene dezaparvovec (AMT-061), a potentially best-in-class treatment of hemophilia B. Etranacogene dezaparvovec combines the potential advantages of AAV5 with an enhanced Padua-FIX transgene, and may provide optimized clinical and tolerability benefits to all, or nearly all patients with hemophilia B. In March 2020, we completed dosing of 54 patients in our Phase III HOPE-B pivotal study.

Maintain our leadership position in commercial-scale AAV manufacturing. We have established cGMP, commercial-scale manufacturing capabilities for AAV-based gene therapies in our state-of-the-art Lexington, Massachusetts facility. We believe the modularity of our platform provides us with distinct advantages, including the potential for reduced development risk and faster times to market.

Build a pipeline of gene therapy programs focused on rare and orphan diseases targeting liver-directed and central-nervous system (“CNS”) diseases. Beyond our lead clinical program for hemophilia B and our Huntington’s disease program, we have a pipeline of additional AAV-based gene therapy programs in various stages of preclinical development. We are leveraging our leading technology platform, which includes novel vectors, promoters, and manufacturing capabilities, to develop gene therapies primarily focused on rare, monogenic liver-directed, and CNS disorders as well as cardiovascular diseases.

Leverage the favorable immunogenicity profile of AAV5-based gene therapies to develop multiple products. We have developed extensive experience with our AAV5-based gene therapies, including in five clinical trials in multiple liver-directed and CNS diseases. During these clinical trials, no patient treated with AAV5-based gene therapies experienced a confirmed immune response to the AAV5 capsid or complications associated with T-cell activation. Additionally, the AAV5 capsid has demonstrated a low avidity to pre-existing neutralizing antibodies (“Nab”), which may enable all, or nearly all patients to be eligible for treatment with AAV5-based gene therapies.

Invest in next-generation technologies with the goal of enhancing safety, improving efficacy, and expanding the applicability of gene therapy to patients. We are developing proprietary technologies that have the potential to augment the safety and efficacy of our product candidates and broaden the applicability of our gene therapies to a wider range of diseases and patients. These technologies include (i) miQURE, our one-time administered gene silencing platform, (ii) tailored vectors, promoters, and other enhancers; (iii) optimized delivery and administration techniques; and (iv) novel transgenes. These technologies are developed both in-house by our experienced research team in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, as well as via collaborations with third parties.

Continue to expand our intellectual property portfolio. We have established what we believe is a leading intellectual property portfolio covering various aspects of our technology and programs, including (i) elements of our gene therapy constructs, such as AAV vectors, promoters and transgenes, including the novel Padua-FIX gene we utilize in etranacogene dezaparvovec for hemophilia B; (ii) innovative delivery technologies, such as re-administration of AAV gene therapy; and (iii) proprietary manufacturing processes covering key components of our upstream and downstream capabilities. We expect to continue to expand our intellectual property portfolio by aggressively seeking patent protection for promising aspects of our technology platform and product candidates.

​

Table of Contents

Our Product Candidates

​

A summary of our key development programs is provided below:

​

​

Liver-directed diseases

​

Hemophilia B (etranacogene dezaparvovec)

​

Hemophilia B Disease and Market Background

Hemophilia B is a serious and rare inherited disease in males characterized by insufficient blood clotting. The condition can lead to repeated and sometimes life-threatening episodes of external and internal bleeding following accidental trauma or medical interventions. Severe hemophilia is characterized by recurrent episodes of spontaneous joint bleeds that cause long-term damage to the joints resulting in disabling arthropathy. Bleeds may be fatal if they occur in the brain. The deficient blood clotting results from the lack of functional human Factor IX (“hFIX”). Treatment of hemophilia B today consists of prophylactic or on-demand protein replacement therapy, in which one to three times weekly intravenous administrations of plasma-derived or recombinant hFIX are required to prevent bleeding and once daily infusions in case bleeding occurs. Hemophilia B occurs in approximately 1 out of 30,000 live male births.

CSL Behring collaboration

On June 24, 2020, we entered into the CSL Behring Agreement pursuant to which CSL Behring would receive exclusive global rights to etranacogene dezaparvovec. Pursuant to the CSL Behring Agreement, we would be responsible for the completion of the HOPE-B clinical trial, manufacturing process validation, and the manufacturing supply of etranacogene dezaparvovec until such time that these capabilities may be transferred to CSL Behring or its designated contract manufacturing organization. Concurrently with the execution of the CSL Behring Agreement we and CSL Behring entered into a development and commercial supply agreement, pursuant to which, among other things, we would supply etranacogene dezaparvovec to CSL Behring at an agreed-upon price. Clinical development and regulatory activities performed by us pursuant to the CSL Behring Agreement would be reimbursed by CSL Behring. CSL Behring would be responsible for global regulatory submissions and commercialization requirements for etranacogene dezaparvovec. The CSL Behring Agreement continues to be subject to antitrust review in the U.S. and as such is not yet effective.

Our Development of etranacogene dezaparvovec for Hemophilia B

We are currently developing etranacogene dezaparvovec, a gene therapy for patients with hemophilia B that is designed to restore FIX activity, an essential protein for blood clotting. Etranacogene dezaparvovec includes an AAV5 vector incorporating the FIX-Padua variant (“FIX-Padua”). Etranacogene dezaparvovec is identical in structure to our first-generation hemophilia B product candidate, AMT-060, apart from two nucleotide substitutions in the coding sequence for FIX. The FIX-Padua variant expresses a protein with a single amino acid substitution that has been reported in multiple preclinical and nonclinical studies to provide an approximate eight-to nine-fold increase in FIX activity compared to the wild-type FIX protein, which was incorporated in AMT-060. All other critical quality attributes of AMT-061 are expected to be comparable to those of AMT-060, as AMT-061 utilizes the same AAV5 capsid and proprietary insect cell-based manufacturing platform.

Table of Contents

Etranacogene dezaparvovec is intended to be delivered by intravenous (“IV”)-infusion, without immunosuppressant therapy, through the peripheral vein in a single treatment session for approximately 30 minutes.

Our goal for etranacogene dezaparvovec is to develop a gene therapy with the following profile:

​

​

AAV5-based gene therapies have been used in a multitude of clinical trials, including five clinical trials conducted by us in patients with hemophilia B and other disorders. No patient treated in clinical trials with our AAV5-based gene therapies has experienced any confirmed, cytotoxic T-cell-mediated immune response to the capsid. An independent clinical trial has demonstrated that AAV5 has the lowest prevalence of pre-existing neutralizing antibodies compared to other AAV vectors. Data from our clinical, preclinical, and nonclinical studies suggest that all, or nearly all patients may be eligible for treatment with etranacogene dezaparvovec.

The FDA has agreed that etranacogene dezaparvovec will fall under the existing Breakthrough Therapy Designation and IND for AMT-060, and the EMA has also agreed that etranacogene dezaparvovec will fall under the PRIME designation.

In June 2018, we initiated our Phase III HOPE-B pivotal trial of etranacogene dezaparvovec. The trial is a multinational, multi-center, open-label, single-arm study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of etranacogene dezaparvovec.

In March 2020, we completed dosing of the 54 patients in the HOPE-B trial. The targeted number of patients to be dosed per the clinical trial protocol was 50. As set forth previously, we have implemented and continue to implement various measures to allow us to closely monitor the trial within the guidance provided by the FDA regarding the impact of the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic to minimize any risk or disruption in patient follow-up visits. The adult hemophilia B patients, who were classified as severe or moderately severe, were enrolled in a six-month observational period prior to dosing during which time they continued to use their current standard of care to establish a baseline control. After the six-month lead-in period, patients received a single IV-administration of etranacogene dezaparvovec. Patients enrolled in the HOPE-B trial were tested for the presence of pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to AAV5 but not excluded from the trial based on their titers. The primary endpoints of the study are based on the FIX activity level achieved following the administration of etranacogene dezaparvovec after 26 weeks and 52 weeks after dosing as well as annualized bleed rates during the 52 weeks after dosing.

In December 2020, we announced top-line data from the HOPE-B trial. The 26-week follow-up date from the trial showed that FIX activity in the 54 patients increased after dosing from ≤ 2% to a mean of 37.2% at 26 weeks, meeting a first primary endpoint of the HOPE-B trial. No correlation between pre-existing neutralizing antibodies and FIX activity was found in patients with neutralizing antibody titers up to 678.2, a range expected to include more than 95% of the general population; one patient with a neutralizing antibody titer of 3,212.3 did not show an increase in FIX activity. Less than 1% of the general population is expected to have neutralizing antibody titers of greater than 3,000.

Table of Contents

During the 26-week period after dosing, 15 patients (28%) reported a total of 21 bleeding events, representing a reduction of 83% compared to the 123 bleeding events reported by 38 patients (70%) during the observational lead-in phase of the trial. Total bleeds include any bleeding event reported after the treatment of etranacogene dezaparvovec, including spontaneous, traumatic, and those associated with unrelated medical procedures, whether or not FIX treatment was required. Of the total bleeding events reported during the 26-week period after dosing, only three were classified as spontaneous bleeds requiring treatment, representing a reduction of 92% compared to the 37 such bleeding events reported during the observational lead-in phase. Mean annualized usage of FIX replacement therapy, a secondary endpoint in the clinical trial, declined by 96% during the 26-week period after dosing compared to the observational lead-in phase. Etranacogene dezaparvovec was generally well-tolerated. As of the November 2020 cut-off date, most adverse events were classified as mild (81.5%). The most common events included transaminase elevation treated with steroids per protocol (9 patients; 17%), infusion-related reactions (7 patients; 13%), headache (7 patients; 13%) and influenza-like symptoms (7 patients; 13%). Liver enzyme elevations resolved with a tapering course of corticosteroids and FIX activity remained in the mild range in the steroid treated patients. No relationship between safety and neutralizing antibody titers was observed. Based on interactions with the FDA and the EMA, we plan to incorporate FIX activity and bleeding rates at 52 weeks as additional co-primary endpoints in the study.

On December 21, 2020, our clinical trials of etranacogene dezaparvovec, including our HOPE-B trial were placed on clinical hold by the FDA. The clinical hold was initiated following the submission of a safety report in mid-December relating to a possibly related serious adverse event associated with a preliminary diagnosis of HCC, a form of liver cancer, in one patient in the HOPE-B trial that was treated with etranacogene dezaparvovec in October 2019. The patient has multiple risk factors associated with HCC, including a twenty-five-year history of HCV, HBV, evidence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and advanced age. Chronic infections with hepatitis B and C have been associated with approximately 80% of HCC cases.

The liver lesion was detected during a routine abdominal ultrasound conducted as part of the required study assessments in patients at one-year post dosing. A surgical resection of the lesion has occurred, and an analysis of the tissue samples was initiated in early 2021. On February 19, 2021, we reported initial results from this analysis to the FDA in accordance with pharmacovigilance requirements. We are gathering final data from these molecular analyses and will be preparing a detailed response to the FDA’s clinical hold questions regarding this event. Currently, we do not have adequate data to determine a possible causal relationship, especially in the context of the other known risk factors. We currently do not anticipate any impact on our regulatory submission timelines, including the filing of a BLA.

No other cases of HCC have been reported in our clinical trials conducted in more than 67 patients in hemophilia B, with some patients dosed more than 5 years ago.

In September 2018, we completed the dosing of a Phase IIb dose-confirmation study of etranacogene dezaparvovec. The Phase IIb study is an open-label, single-dose, single-arm, multi-center trial being conducted in the United States. The objective of the study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of etranacogene dezaparvovec and confirm the dose based on FIX activity at six weeks after administration.  Three patients with severe hemophilia were enrolled in this study and received a single intravenous infusion of 2x10¹³ genome copies per kilogram (“gc/kg”). Patients were evaluated for the presence of pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to AAV5 but were not excluded from the trial on this basis. We have followed the patients for more than two years to assess FIX activity, bleeding rates and usage of FIX replacement therapy, and will monitor the three patients for a total of five years to evaluate the safety of etranacogene dezaparvovec.

In December 2018, the study’s Data Monitoring Committee evaluated initial data from the Phase IIb study and confirmed the dose of 2x10¹³ gc/kg for the Phase III pivotal trial.

Table of Contents

In February, May, July, and December 2019, and in December 2020, we presented updated data from the Phase IIb dose-confirmation study of etranacogene dezaparvovec. The most recent data that we announced in December 2020 from the Phase IIb study of etranacogene dezaparvovec show that all three patients experienced increasing and sustained FIX levels after a one-time administration of etranacogene dezaparvovec. Mean FIX activity was 44.2% of normal two years after administration, exceeding threshold FIX levels generally considered sufficient to significantly reduce the risk of bleeding events. The first patient achieved FIX activity of 44.7% of normal, the second patient was 51.6% of normal and the third patient was 36.3% of normal. The second and third patients had previously screen-failed and were excluded from another gene therapy study due to pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to a different AAV vector. At two years after dosing, two of the three participants remain free from bleeds and use of FIX replacement therapy. A single bleed has been reported in one participant, who has used a total of two FIX infusions (excluding surgery). All patients have remained free of prophylaxis in the two years since receiving etranacogene dezaparvovec.

Intellectual Property for etranacogene dezaparvovec

In 2017, we acquired intellectual property from Professor Paolo Simioni (“Dr. Simioni”), a hemophilia expert at the University of Padua, Italy. The intellectual property includes U.S. Patent Number 9,249,405, which covers compositions of FIX-Padua nucleic acids and polypeptides (proteins), as well as their therapeutic uses.

On May 29, 2018, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) granted us a second patent, U.S. Patent Number 9,982,248, which covers methods of treating coagulopathies (bleeding disorders), including hemophilia B, using AAV-based gene therapy with nucleic acid encoding the hyperactive FIX Padua variant. The FIX Padua variant is a FIX protein carrying a leucine at the R338 position, often called the "FIX-Padua" or "Padua mutant".  

On November 5, 2019, the USPTO granted us a third patent, U.S. Patent Number 10,465,180, which covers any AAV comprising a nucleic acid encoding a FIX-Padua protein, and promoter sequences, transcription termination and control elements. The claims also cover FIX-Padua variants with at least 70% sequence identity to FIX-R338L.

In addition to the U.S. patents, on February 20, 2018, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office granted Patent Number 2,737,094, which covers FIX-Padua nucleic acids for use in gene therapy and FIX-Padua polypeptides for use in FIX replacement therapy.

On June 13, 2018, we were granted European Patent 2337849 directed to a FIX polypeptide protein. The opposition period with respect to such patent expired on March 13, 2019, by which time five parties had filed an opposition. On July 25, 2019, we submitted responses to such oppositions with the European Patent Office (“EPO”). Oral proceedings were scheduled for June and July 2020 but were postponed due to COVID-19. New dates for virtual oral proceedings have been set for May 2021. In addition, on May 15, 2019, a divisional European patent application in the FIX-Padua family, EP 3252157, was refused. In September 2019, we filed a notice of appeal with respect to such refusal. We are also pursuing a European divisional patent application that was filed on May 14, 2019. Both in the U.S. and in Europe, we have pending divisional applications still in prosecution phases. The appeal process has been delayed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and we do not currently know when the appeal is likely to be resolved.

On January 4, 2020, a petition seeking Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,249,405 (the “’405 Patent”) was filed by Pfizer, Inc. (the “IPR Proceeding”). The petition sought to invalidate claims 6 and 9-15 of the ‘405 Patent. On April 17, 2020, we filed our preliminary response to the petition, disclaiming claims 6 and 9-13 of the ‘405 patent and otherwise requesting the denial of the petition. On July 13, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued its decision to institute the Inter Partes Review. On October 13, 2020, we filed a motion to amend the patent claims at issue in the proceeding. On January 13, 2021, Pfizer filed a brief in opposition to our motion to amend the claims. On February 3, 2021 the Patent Appeals Board of the USPTO (the “PTAB”) provided its preliminary guidance with respect to the proposed amended claims, which stated among other things that the proposed amended claims were not anticipated but were obvious in light of the cited prior art.  On February 16, 2021 and in response to the preliminary guidance, we moved to dismiss our motion to amend the claims before the PTAB and requested an adverse judgement in the IPR Proceeding. As a result, we expect to maintain the currently issued and unchallenged claims of the ‘405 Patent and pursue additional claims based on our proposed amended claims in continuation applications before the USPTO.

Table of Contents

Phase I/II Clinical Trial of AMT-060

In the third quarter of 2015, we initiated a Phase I/II clinical trial of AMT-060, our first-generation hemophilia B product candidate, in patients with severe or moderately-severe hemophilia B. AMT-060 consists of an AAV5 vector carrying a codon-optimized, wild-type, human FIX gene cassette licensed from St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. The study is a five-year, open-label, uncontrolled, single-dose, dose-ascending multi-center trial that includes two cohorts, with the low-dose cohort using a treatment of 5x10¹² gc/kg and the second-dose cohort using 2x10¹³ gc/kg. We enrolled five patients into the low dose cohort in the third quarter of 2015. Another five patients were enrolled into the high dose cohort between March and May 2016.

In December 2020, we presented five-year follow-up data related to this Phase I/II clinical trial. All 10 patients enrolled continue to show long-term clinical benefit, including sustained increases in FIX activity, reduced usage of FIX replacement therapy, and decreased bleeding frequency. At up to five years of follow-up, AMT-060 continues to be well-tolerated, with no new treatment-related adverse events since the last reported data and no development of inhibitors during the study.

All five patients in the second dose cohort of 2x10¹³ gc/kg (the same dose being studied in the Phase III HOPE-B study of etranacogene dezaparvovec) continue to be free of routine FIX replacement therapy at four-and-a-half years after treatment. Based on the six months of data collected during the fifth year of follow-up, the mean annualized bleeding rate was zero compared to an average of four bleeds during the year prior to treatment, representing a 100% reduction. During this same period, the usage of FIX replacement therapy declined to zero compared to 354,800 IU in the year prior to treatment, representing a 100% reduction. Mean FIX activity over 4.5 years was 7.4% (compared to 7.5% at three and a half years, 7.9% in the third year, 8.4% in the second year and 7.1% in the first year), while in the lower dose cohort, mean FIX activity was 5.2% over 5 years since treatment.

Fabry disease program (AMT-190)

Fabry Disease and Market Background

Fabry disease is a progressive, inherited, multisystemic lysosomal storage disease characterized by specific neurological, cutaneous, renal, cardiovascular, cochleo-vestibular, and cerebrovascular manifestations. Fabry disease is caused by a defect in a gene that encodes for a protein called α-galactosidase A (“GLA”). The GLA protein is an essential enzyme required to breakdown globotriaosylsphingosine (“Gb3”) and lyso-globotriaosylsphingosine (“lyso-Gb3”). In patients living with Fabry disease, Gb3 and lyso-Gb3 accumulate in various cells throughout the body causing progressive clinical signs and symptoms of the disease. Current treatment options, which consist of bi-weekly intravenous enzyme replacement therapy, typically have no therapeutic benefit in patients with advanced renal or cardiac disease. Studies have also shown that a majority of male patients develop antibodies that inhibit the GLA protein and interfere with therapeutic efficacy.

Fabry disease has two major disease phenotypes: the type 1 “classic” and type 2 “later-onset” subtypes. Both lead to renal failure, and/or cardiac disease, and early death. Type 1 males have little or no functional a-Gal A enzymatic activity (<1% of normal mean) and marked accumulation of GL-3/Gb3 and related glycolipids in capillaries and small blood vessels which cause the major symptoms in childhood or adolescence.  In contrast, males with the type 2 “later-onset” phenotype (previously called cardiac or renal variants) have residual a-Gal A activity, lack GL-3/Gb3 accumulation in capillaries and small blood vessels, and do not manifest the early manifestations of type 1 males. They experience an essentially normal childhood and adolescence. They typically present with renal and/or cardiac disease in the third to seventh decades of life. Most type 2 later-onset patients have been identified by enzyme screening of patients in cardiac, hemodialysis, renal transplant, and stroke clinics and recently by newborn screening. Fabry disease occurs in all racial and ethnic populations and affects males and females. It is estimated that type 1 classic Fabry disease affects approximately one in 40,000 males. The type 2 later-onset phenotype is more frequent, and in some populations may occur as frequently as about 1 in 1,500 to 4,000 males.

Table of Contents

​

Our Development of AMT-190 for Fabry Disease

In September 2020, we selected a lead gene therapy candidate (AMT-190) for the treatment of Fabry disease to advance into IND-enabling studies. The lead candidate is a one-time administered AAV5 gene therapy incorporating the GLA transgene. In preclinical studies comparing multiple product candidates, including constructs incorporating a modified alpha-N-acetylgalactosaminidase transgene (modNAGA), AMT-190 demonstrated the most robust and sustained increases in GLA activity.

Hemophilia A program (AMT-180)

In June 2020, we announced that we plan to de-prioritize our research program of AMT-180 for patients with hemophilia A, as part of our effort to focus on those gene therapy programs that have the greatest potential to improve patients’ lives and generate long-term value for shareholders.

​

Table of Contents

Central Nervous System diseases

Huntington’s Disease

Huntington’s Disease and Market Background

Huntington’s disease is a severe genetic neurodegenerative disorder causing loss of muscle coordination, behavioral abnormalities, and cognitive decline, often resulting in complete physical and mental deterioration over a 12 to 15-year period. The median survival time after onset is 15 to 18 years (range: 5 to >25 years). Huntington’s disease is caused by an inherited defect in a single gene that codes for a protein called Huntingtin (“HTT”). The prevalence of Huntington’s disease is three to seven per 100,000 in the general population, similar in men and women, and it is therefore considered a rare disease. Despite the ability to identify Huntington’s disease mutation carriers decades before onset, there is currently no available therapy that can delay onset or slow progression of the disease. Although some symptomatic treatments are available, they only are transiently effective despite significant side effects.

Our Development of AMT-130 for Huntington’s Disease

AMT-130 is our gene therapy candidate targeting Huntington’s disease that utilizes an AAV vector carrying an engineered micro ribonucleic acid (“miRNA”) designed to silence HTT and exon 1 HTT, a potentially highly toxic protein fragment that may also contribute to disease pathology. AMT-130 comprises a recombinant AAV5 vector carrying a deoxyribonucleic acid (“DNA”) cassette, encoding a miRNA that non-selectively lowers or knocks-down HTT and exon 1 HTT in Huntington’s disease patients. AMT-130 was developed using our miQURE technology, a proprietary, one-time administered gene silencing platform. AMT-130 has received orphan drug designation from the FDA and Orphan Medicinal Product Designation from the EMA. AMT-130 is intended to be administered directly into the brain via a stereotactic, magnetic resonance imaging guided catheter.

Our goal for AMT-130 is to develop a gene therapy with the following profile:

​

In April 2018, we presented an overview of preclinical data establishing proof-of-concept for AMT-130 at the 2018 American Academy of Neurology Annual Meeting in Los Angeles, California. Data from multiple studies in Huntington's disease animal models across three different species showed that a single intraparenchymal administration of AMT-130 into the striatum, resulted in a dose-dependent and sustained reduction of mutant huntingtin protein (“mHTT”) in both the deep structures of the brain and the cortex. Specifically, we presented data from the ongoing preclinical study in transgenic minipigs, one of the largest Huntington's disease animal models available, demonstrating significant reductions in human mHTT by a median of 68% in the striatum and a median of 47% in the frontal cortex at 6 months after administration of AMT-130.

In January 2019, our IND application for AMT-130 was cleared by the FDA and in the fourth quarter of 2019 we initiated patient screening for a Phase I/II study. The Phase I/II protocol is a randomized, imitation surgery-controlled, double-blinded study conducted at three surgical sites, and multiple referring, non-surgical sites in the U.S. The primary objective of the study is to evaluate the safety, tolerability and efficacy of AMT-130 at two doses.

In February 2019, we presented new preclinical data at the 14^th Annual CHDI Huntington’s disease Therapeutics Conference that illustrate the therapeutic potential of AMT-130 in restoring function of damaged brain cells in Huntington’s disease. In that study, AMT-130 was generally well-tolerated and resulted in a sustained reduction of mutant huntingtin protein.

Table of Contents

In June 2020, we announced the completion of the first two patient procedures in the Phase I/II clinical trial of AMT-130 for the treatment of Huntington’s disease. These procedures occurred after a postponement that resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated states of emergency declarations in the United States. The Phase I/II protocol is a randomized, imitation surgery-controlled, double-blinded study conducted at three surgical sites, and multiple referring, non-surgical sites in the U.S. The primary objective of the study is to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of AMT-130 at two doses.

On September 25, 2020, we announced that the independent DSMB overseeing the Phase I/II clinical trial of AMT-130 for the treatment of Huntington’s disease had met and reviewed 90-day safety data from the first two patients enrolled in the trial. No significant safety concerns were noted to prevent further dosing.

On October 13, 2020, we announced the completion of the third and fourth patient procedures in the Phase I/II clinical trial.

On February 8, 2021, we announced that the DSMB had met and reviewed the six-month safety data from the first two enrolled patients and the 90-day safety data from the next two enrolled patients in the study. No significant safety concerns were noted to prevent further dosing, and the final six patients in the first cohort are now cleared for enrollment.

Spinocerebellar Ataxia Type 3 program

Spinocerebellar Ataxia type 3 and Market Background

Spinocerebellar Ataxia type 3 (“SCA3”), also known as Machado-Joseph disease, is a central nervous system disorder caused by a cytosine-adenine-guanine (“CAG”)-repeat expansion in the ATXN3 gene that results in an abnormal form of the protein ataxin-3. Patients with SCA3 experience brain degeneration that results in movement disorders, rigidity, muscular atrophy, and paralysis. There is currently no treatment available that slows the progressive course of this potentially lethal disease.

Prevalence of SCA3 is estimated to be one to two per 100,000 with significant geographical and ethnic variations, with the highest prevalence rates observed in the Azores (Flores Island (1/239)), the intermediate prevalence rates observed in Portugal, Germany, the Netherlands, China and Japan, and the lower prevalence observed in North America, Australia, and India. SCA3 is the most common form of autosomal dominant cerebellar ataxia (“ADCA”) type 1 in most genetically characterized populations.

Our preclinical SCA3 program (AMT-150)

AMT-150 is a one-time, intrathecally-administered, AAV gene therapy incorporating our proprietary miQURE silencing technology that is designed to halt ataxia in early manifest SCA3 patients. In an in-vitro study with human induced pluripotent stem (“IPS”) derived neurons, AMT-150 has been shown to lower the human ataxin-3 protein by 65%, without any off-target effects. We also performed a proof-of-concept in-life study in SCA3 mice demonstrating that AMT-150 was able to lower toxic ataxin-3 protein by up to 53% in the cerebellum and up to 65% in the brain stem after a single administration. Further studies in non-human primates (“NHP”) demonstrate the ability to distribute and express a reporter gene in the most degenerated brain regions in SCA3. In these preclinical studies, a single administration of AMT-150 resulted in sustained expression and efficient processing with on-target engagement. Additionally, AMT-150 lacked off-target activity in these studies.

At the 2019 American Academy of Neurology Annual Meeting, we presented preclinical data on AMT-150 demonstrating mechanistic proof-of-concept of the non-allele-specific ataxin-3 protein-silencing approach by using artificial miRNA candidates engineered to target the ataxin-3 gene in a SCA3 knock-in mouse model. In this proof-of-concept study, a single AMT-150 injection in the cerebrospinal fluid resulted in AAV transduction and mutant ataxin-3 lowering at the primary sites of disease neuropathology, the cerebellum (up to 53%) and the brainstem (up to 65%).

Table of Contents

In May 2020, we presented preclinical data at the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy (“ASGCT”) Annual Meeting, on our gene therapy candidate SCA3. In an in vivo preclinical study, six NHP received a one-time injection of AMT-150 via the cisterna magna to assess expression and distribution. Samples taken after eight weeks showed widespread transduction of the brain and spinal cord, with the highest genome copies found in the posterior fossa and cortical regions. In other preclinical studies, researchers evaluated AMT-150 in SCA3 mouse models, as well as human induced pluripotent stem cell (“iPSC”)-derived neurons and astrocytes, to investigate potential off-target effects of AAV5-micro ataxin type 3 (“miATXN3”). The iPSC-derived cell cultures, which were derived from two SCA3 patients, represent the most disease-relevant cell type for therapeutic targeting of AMT-150. A clear dose-dependent expression of miATXN3 was observed in the iPSC-derived neurons and astrocytes transduced with AMT-150. Mature miATXN3 molecules were also associated with extracellular vesicles that strongly correlated with the dose and miATXN3 expression, suggesting the potential therapeutic spread of the engineered miATXN3. Additionally, AMT-150 demonstrated ATXN3 knockdown in human neurons and various SCA3 mouse models with subsequent neuropathology improvement.

In September 2020, we initiated a safety and toxicology study of AMT-150 in NHP.

New Technology Development

We are seeking to develop next-generation technologies with the goal of further improving the potential of AAV-based gene therapies to treat patients suffering from debilitating diseases.

We are focused on innovative technologies across each of the key components of an AAV-based gene therapy, including: (i) the capsid, or the outer viral protein shell that encloses the target DNA; (ii) the promoter, or the DNA sequence that drives the expression of the transgene; and (iii) the transgene, or therapeutic gene.

We dedicate significant effort to designing and screening novel AAV capsids with the potential for (i) higher biological potency; (ii) increased specificity and penetration of specific tissue types; and (iii) enhanced safety. We believe we have significant expertise in vector engineering and have created promising genetically engineered capsids using a “rational design” approach.

In addition to the directed evolution approach where we screen a library of AAV mutants, we are also rationally engineering the AAV capsids to target them to specific cells and/or tissues. Using such engineered AAV capsids will ensure selected transduction of the targeted, desired cell type. The strategy will diminish potential off target effects.  

We work extensively on designing synthetic promoters with the potential of enabling higher levels of protein expression in specific tissue types. A “promoter” is an essential component of a gene therapy construct that controls expression of a therapeutic protein. Synthetic promoters, which do not exist in nature, are optimally tailored to drive gene expression at a desired level and specificity.

To further tailor gene therapies to optimally address certain disorders we may also incorporate specific modifications into the transgenes of our gene therapy constructs.  For example, we incorporated the Padua-FIX variant into our hemophilia B gene therapy to substantially increase the resulting FIX activity and potentially improve clinical outcomes. For other programs, such as our gene therapy construct for Fabry disease, we have also utilized modified transgenes with the goal of enhancing efficacy, durability, and safety, as well as expanding the access of gene therapies to patients with inhibitors.  

We have also demonstrated the ability to deliver engineered DNA constructs that can silence or suppress disease-causing genes. Our miQURE gene silencing platform, based on exclusively licensed technology from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (“CSHL”), is designed to degrade mutated genes without off-target toxicity and induce silencing of the mutated gene in the entire target organ through secondary exosome-mediated delivery. miQURE-based gene therapy candidates, such as AMT-130, incorporate proprietary, therapeutic miRNA constructs that can be delivered using AAVs to potentially provide long-lasting activity. Preclinical studies of miQURE-based gene therapies have demonstrated several important advantages, including enhanced tissue-specificity, improved nuclear and cytoplasmic gene lowering and no off-target effects associated with impact to the cellular miRNA or messenger RNA transcriptome.

Table of Contents

Commercial-Scale Manufacturing Capabilities

The ability to reliably produce at a high quality and at commercial scale is a critical success factor in AAV gene therapy. We produce our gene therapies at our state-of-the-art, Lexington, Massachusetts-based manufacturing facility using a proprietary baculovirus expression vector system.

We believe our integrated manufacturing capabilities provide us several potential advantages, including:

​

Intellectual Property

​

Introduction

​

We strive to protect the proprietary technologies that we believe are important to our business, including seeking and maintaining patent protection in the United States, Europe, and other countries for novel components of gene therapies, the chemistries, and processes for manufacturing these gene therapies, the use of these components in gene therapies, our technology platform, and other inventions and related technology. We also rely on trade secrets, security measures and careful monitoring of our proprietary information to protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection.

​

We expect that our probability of success will be significantly enhanced by our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for commercially important technology, inventions and know-how related to our business, defend and enforce our patents, maintain our licenses to use intellectual property owned by third parties, preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets and operate without infringing the valid and enforceable patents and other proprietary rights of third parties. We also rely on know-how, continuing technological innovation and in-licensing opportunities to develop, strengthen and maintain our proprietary position in the field of AAV-based gene therapies.

​

In some cases, we are dependent on the patented or proprietary technology of third parties to develop and commercialize our products. We must obtain licenses from such third parties on commercially reasonable terms, or our business could be harmed, possibly materially. For example, we license from third parties essential parts of the therapeutic gene cassettes as well as the principal AAV vectors we use and key elements of our manufacturing process. We anticipate that we will require additional licenses in the future.

​

Table of Contents

Because most patent applications throughout the world are confidential for 18 months after the earliest claimed priority date, and since the publication of discoveries in the scientific and patent literature often lags actual discoveries, we cannot be certain that we were the first to invent or file applications for the inventions covered by our pending patent applications. Moreover, we may have to participate in post-grant proceedings in the patent offices of the United States or foreign jurisdictions, such as oppositions, reexaminations, or interferences, in which the patentability or priority of our inventions are challenged. Such proceedings could result in substantial cost, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us.

​

Our intellectual property portfolio consists of owned and in-licensed patents, copyrights, licenses, trademarks, trade secrets and other intellectual property rights.

​

Patent Portfolio

​

Our gene therapy programs are protected by patents and patent applications directed to various aspects of our technology. For example, our gene therapy programs are protected by patents and patent applications with composition-of-matter or method of use claims that cover the therapeutic gene, the promoter, the viral vector capsid, or other specific parts of these technologies. We also seek protection of core aspects of our manufacturing process, particularly regarding our baculovirus expression system for AAV vectors in insect cells. In addition, we have filed manufacturing patent applications with claims directed to alternative compositions-of-matter and manufacturing processes to seek better protection from competitors.

​

We file the initial patent applications for our commercially important technologies in both Europe and the United States. For the same technologies, we typically file international patent applications under the PCT within a year. We also may seek, usually on a case-by-case basis, local patent protection in Canada, Australia, Japan, China, India, Israel, South Africa, New Zealand, South Korea, and Eurasia, as well as South American jurisdictions such as Brazil and Mexico.

​

As of December 31, 2020, our intellectual property portfolio included 99 issued or granted patents and 121 pending patent applications. The geographic breakdown of our owned and exclusively in-licensed patent portfolio was as follows:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

These patents relate to a variety of technologies including our product candidates that are in development and our manufacturing and technology platform.

​

​

​

Table of Contents

Our Patent Portfolio Related to Certain Development Programs

​

Hemophilia B (AMT-061)

​

We own a patent family, including patents and patent applications, directed to the use of the Padua mutation in hFIX for gene therapy in etranacogene dezaparvovec. A PCT application was filed on September 15, 2009, and patents have been issued in the United States, Europe, and Canada. Further applications are pending in the United States (three issued patents), Europe, and Hong Kong. The issued patents include claims directed to FIX protein with a leucine at the R338 position of the protein sequence, nucleic acid sequences coding for this protein, and therapeutic applications, including gene therapy. The standard 20-year patent term of patents in this family will expire in 2029.

​

On June 13, 2018, we were granted European Patent 2337849 directed to a polypeptide protein. The opposition period with respect to such patent expired on March 13, 2019, by which time five parties had filed an opposition. On July 25, 2019, we submitted responses to such oppositions with the EPO and oral proceedings with respect to such oppositions were scheduled for June and July 2020 but were postponed due to COVID-19. New dates for virtual oral proceedings have been set for May 2021. In addition, on May 15, 2019, a divisional European patent application in the FIX-Padua family, EP 3252157, was refused. In September 2019, we filed a notice of appeal with respect to such refusal. We are also pursuing a European divisional patent application that was filed on May 14, 2019. Both in the U.S. and in Europe, we have pending divisional applications still in prosecution phases. The appeal process has been delayed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and we do not currently know when the appeal is likely to be resolved.

​

On November 5, 2019, the USPTO granted us a third patent, U.S. Patent Number 10,465,180, which covers any AAV comprising a nucleic acid encoding a FIX-Padua protein, and promoter sequences, transcription termination and control elements. The claims also cover FIX-Padua variants with at least 70% sequence identity to FIX-R338L.

​

On January 4, 2020, the IPR Proceeding was filed by Pfizer, Inc. The petition sought to invalidate claims 6 and 9-15 of the ‘405 Patent. On April 17, 2020, we filed our preliminary response to the petition, disclaiming claims 6 and 9-13 of the ‘405 patent and otherwise requesting the denial of the petition. On July 13, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued its decision to institute the Inter Partes Review. On October 13, 2020, we filed a motion to amend the patent claims at issue in the proceeding. On January 13, 2021, Pfizer filed its opposition to our motion to amend the claims. On February 3, 2021 the PTAB provided its preliminary guidance with respect to the proposed amended claims, which stated among other things that the proposed amended claims were not anticipated but were obvious in light of the cited prior art.  On February 16, 2021 and in response to the preliminary guidance, we moved to dismiss our motion to amend the claims before the PTAB and requested an adverse judgement in the IPR Proceeding. As a result, we expect to maintain the currently issued and unchallenged claims of the ‘405 Patent and pursue additional claims based on our proposed amended claims in continuation applications before the USPTO.

​

Huntington’s disease (AMT-130)

​

We own a patent family directed to gene therapy treatment of Huntington’s disease within AMT-130. This family includes an issued patent in the United States and pending patent applications in the US, Europe, and other jurisdictions. The standard 20-year term of patents in this family will expire in 2035.

​

In May 2019, we announced the issuance of two new patents covering AMT-130, U.S. Patent 10,174,321 and European Patent EP 3237618 B1.  The claims as granted cover the RNA constructs specifically designed to target exon1 and the embedding of these Huntington’s disease RNA sequences into the miR451 scaffold, which is exclusively licensed to us from CSHL. The claims also cover certain expression cassettes comprising the RNA constructs and the use of gene therapy vectors including AAV vectors encompassing the described expression cassettes. In addition, this patent family has multiple pending family members, including pending applications in U.S. and Europe.

​

AMT-130 incorporates our proprietary miQURE gene silencing technology platform, which is designed to degrade disease-causing genes, without off-target toxicity, and induce silencing of the entire target organ through secondary exosome-mediated delivery.  We have filed additional patent applications related to this technology generally and AMT-130, specifically which will potentially provide further patent protection for our Huntington’s disease clinical candidate AMT-130.

​

Table of Contents

Licenses

​

We have obtained exclusive or non-exclusive rights from third parties under a range of patents and other technology that we use in our product and development programs, as described below. Our agreements with these third parties generally grant us a license to make, use, sell, offer to sell, and import products covered by the licensed patent rights in exchange for our payment of some combination of an upfront amount, annual fees, royalties, a percentage of amounts we receive from our licensees and payments upon the achievement of specified development, regulatory or commercial milestones. Some of the agreements specify the extent of the efforts we must use to develop and commercialize licensed products. The agreements generally expire upon expiration of the last-to-expire valid claim of the licensed patents. Each licensor may terminate the applicable agreement if we materially breach our obligations and fail to cure the breach within a specified cure period.

​

Technology Used for Multiple Programs

​

We are exploiting technology from third-party sources described below in more than one of our programs.

​

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

​

In 2015, we entered into a license agreement with CSHL in which CSHL granted to us an exclusive, sublicensable license to develop and commercialize certain of CSHL’s patented RNAi-related technology for use in connection with the treatment or prevention of Huntington’s disease. The standard 20-year patent term for the licensed patents expires in 2031.

​

In 2018, we entered into an amendment of the license agreement with CSHL that expanded the license to include the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of all CNS diseases in the Field, including but not limited to Huntington’s disease. In addition, under the amended license agreement CSHL granted to us an exclusive license for a three-year term to develop and commercialize therapeutic products for the additional disease classifications in the Field of liver diseases, neuromuscular diseases, and cardiovascular diseases. If we meet certain diligence milestones during the initial three-year development term, we may include exclusively additional disease classifications within the additional Fields on similar terms and conditions as the CNS diseases. We are currently using the technology in our Huntington’s disease and SCA 3 programs.

​

Under this license agreement, annual fees, development milestone payments and future single-digit royalties on net sales of a licensed product are payable to CSHL.

​

Protein Sciences

​

In 2016, we revised our existing license contract with Protein Sciences Corporation for the use of its expresSF+ insect cell line and associated technology for human therapeutic and prophylactic uses (except influenza) to provide us with a royalty free, perpetual right and license to the licensed technology in the field of AAV-based gene therapy.

​

Technology Used for Specific Development Programs

​

Hemophilia B

​

National Institutes of Health—AAV production

​

In 2007, we entered into a non-exclusive license agreement with the NIH, which we amended in 2009 and 2013. The patents under this license cover technology to produce AAV vectors in insect cells. We may only grant sublicenses under this agreement with the NIH’s consent, which may not be unreasonably withheld. The standard 20-year term for the underlying patents will expire in 2022.

​

Payment obligations to the NIH under this license agreement include a low single-digit percentage royalty on the net sales of licensed products by us or on our behalf; development and regulatory milestone payments; and an annual maintenance fee creditable against royalties. We do not have to pay royalties or milestone fees under this agreement if we must pay royalties or milestone fees under our 2011 agreement with the NIH, described below, for the same product. Under the license agreement, we have agreed to meet benchmarks in our development efforts, including as to development events, clinical trials, and marketing approval, within specified timeframes.

Table of Contents

The NIH may terminate this agreement in specified circumstances relating to our insolvency or bankruptcy. We may terminate this agreement for any reason, in any territory, subject to a specified notice period.

​

National Institutes of Health—AAV5

​

In 2011, we entered into another license agreement with the NIH, superseding an earlier agreement. This agreement was amended in 2016. Under this agreement, the NIH granted us an exclusive, worldwide license to patents relating to AAV5 for use in therapeutic products to be delivered to the brain or liver for treatment of human diseases originating in the brain or liver but excluding arthritis-related diseases, and a non-exclusive, worldwide license to patents relating to AAV5 for all other diseases. The license technology under the patents of this license is also used in connection with the Huntington’s disease program. We refer to the products licensed under this agreement as AAV5 products. We may grant sublicenses under this agreement only with the NIH’s consent, which may not be unreasonably withheld. The standard 20-year term for the underlying patents expired in 2019, but there are U.S. patents still in force of which the latest will expire in 2021.

​

Payment obligations to the NIH under this license agreement include royalties equal to a low single-digit percentage of net sales of AAV5 products; development and regulatory milestone payments; and an annual maintenance fee creditable against royalties. If an AAV5 product is also covered by our 2007 agreement with the NIH, our obligation to pay royalties on net sales and our obligation to pay milestone fees only apply under this 2011 agreement and not the 2007 agreement. We have agreed to meet benchmarks in our development efforts, including as to development events, clinical trials, and marketing approval, within specified timeframes.

​

The NIH may terminate this agreement in specified circumstances relating to our insolvency or bankruptcy. We may terminate this agreement for any reason, in any country or territory, subject to a specified notice period.

​

Padua

​

On April 17, 2017, we entered into an Assignment and License Agreement with Dr. Simioni (the “Padua Assignment”). Pursuant to the Padua Assignment, we acquired from Dr. Simioni all right, title and interest in a patent family covering the variant of the FIX gene, carrying an R338L mutation (FIX-Padua; “Padua IP”). Under the Padua Assignment, we have also licensed certain know-how included in the Padua IP. We will provide Dr. Simioni with an initial license fee and reimbursement of past expenses, as well as payments that may come due upon the achievement of certain milestone events related to the development of the Padua IP and may also include royalties on a percentage of certain revenues. We have granted a license of the Padua IP back to Dr. Simioni for therapeutic or diagnostic use of a modified Factor IX protein (other than in connection with gene therapy) and any application for non-commercial research purposes. We have agreed to indemnify Dr. Simioni for claims arising from our research, development, manufacture, or commercialization of any product making use of the Padua IP, subject to certain conditions.  The Padua Assignment will remain in effect, unless otherwise terminated pursuant to the terms of the Padua Assignment, until the later of (i) the expiration date of the last of the patents within the Padua IP and (ii) the expiration of the payment obligations under the Padua Assignment.

​

St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital

​

In 2008, we entered into a license agreement with St. Jude, which we amended in 2012. Under this license agreement, St. Jude has granted us an exclusive license, with a right to sublicense, to patent rights relating to expression of hFIX in gene therapy vectors, to make, import, distribute, use, and commercialize products containing hFIX covered by a valid patent claim in the field of gene therapy for treatment or prophylaxis of hemophilia B. In addition, we have a first right of negotiation regarding any patent applications that are filed by St. Jude for any improvements to the patent rights licensed to us. The U.S. patent rights will expire in 2028 and the European patents will expire in 2025.

​

We have agreed to pay St. Jude a royalty equal to a low single-digit percentage of net sales, if any, by us or our sublicensees of products covered by the licensed patent rights, and a portion of certain amounts we receive from sublicensees ranging from a mid-single digit to a mid-teen double-digit percentage of such amounts. We have also agreed to pay St. Jude one-time milestone fees totaling $6.5 million upon the achievement of specified development and regulatory milestones, and an annual maintenance fee creditable against royalties and milestones in the same year. We have agreed to use commercially reasonable efforts to diligently develop and commercialize products licensed under this agreement.

Table of Contents

The agreement will remain in effect until no further payment is due relating to any licensed product under this agreement or either we or St. Jude exercise our rights to terminate it. St. Jude may terminate the agreement in specified circumstances relating to our insolvency. We may terminate the agreement for convenience at any time subject to a specified notice period.

​

Trade Secrets

​

In addition to patents and licenses, we rely on trade secrets and know-how to develop and maintain our competitive position. For example, significant aspects of the process by which we manufacture our gene therapies are based on unpatented trade secrets and know-how. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes and obtain and maintain ownership of certain technologies, in part, through confidentiality agreements and invention assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, contractors and commercial collaborator. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data, trade secrets and know-how by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems.

​

Trademarks

​

We have a number of material registered trademarks, including “uniQure”, that we have registered in various jurisdictions including the United States and the European Union. We may seek trademark protection for other product candidates and technologies as and when appropriate.

​

Competition

​

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including in the gene therapy field, are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition, and a strong emphasis on intellectual property. We face substantial competition from many different sources, including large and specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic research institutions and governmental agencies and public and private research institutions.

​

We are aware of numerous companies focused on developing gene therapies in various indications, including Applied Genetic Technologies Corp., Abbvie, Abeona Therapeutics, Adverum Biotechnologies, Ally Therapeutics, Apic Bio, Asklepios BioPharmaceutical, Astellas, AVROBIO, Bayer, Biogen, BioMarin, bluebird bio, CRISPR Therapeutics, Editas Medicine, Expression Therapeutics, Fate, Freeline Therapeutics, Generation Bio, Genethon, GlaxoSmithKline, Homology Medicines, Intellia Therapeutics, Johnson & Johnson, Krystal Biotech, Lexeo Therapeutics, LogicBio Therapeutics, Lysogene, MeiraGTx, Milo Biotechnology, Mustang Bio, Novartis, Orchard Therapeutics, Oxford Biomedica, Passage Bio, Pfizer, REGENXBIO, Renova Therapeutics, Roche, Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Sangamo Therapeutics, Sanofi, Selecta Biosciences, Sarepta Therapeutics, Sio Therapeutics, Solid Biosciences, SwanBio, Takeda, Taysha Gene Therapies, Ultragenyx, Vivet Therapeutics, and Voyager Therapeutics, as well as several companies addressing other methods for modifying genes and regulating gene expression. We may also face competition with respect to the treatment of some of the diseases that we are seeking to target with our gene therapies from protein, nucleic acid, antisense, RNAi and other pharmaceuticals under development or commercialized at pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies such as Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, BioMarin, CSL Behring, Dicerna Pharmaceuticals, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Translate Bio, Roche, Sanofi, Sobi, Takeda, WaVe Life Sciences, and numerous other pharmaceutical and biotechnology firms.

​

We also compete with existing standards of care, therapies, and symptomatic treatments, as well as any new therapies that may become available in the future for the indications we are targeting.

​

Many of our current or potential competitors, either alone or with their collaborators, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials and marketing approved products than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and gene therapy industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

​

Table of Contents

The key competitive factors affecting the success of all our programs are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience, price, and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payers. We also believe that, due to the small size of the patient populations in the orphan indications we target, being first to market will be a significant competitive advantage. We believe that our advantages in vector and manufacturing technology will allow us to reach market in a number of indications ahead of our competitors, and to capture the markets in these indications.

​

Government Regulation and Reimbursement

​

Government authorities in the United States, European Union and other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the approval, research, development, preclinical and clinical testing, manufacture (including any manufacturing changes), packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, post-approval monitoring and reporting, reimbursement, and import and export of pharmaceutical products, biological products, and medical devices. We believe that all our product candidates will be regulated as biological products, or biologics, and in particular, as gene therapies, and will be subject to such requirements and regulations under U.S. and foreign laws. For other countries outside of the United States and the European Union, marketing approval and pricing and reimbursement requirements vary from country to country. If we fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, refusal to approve pending applications, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions, and criminal prosecution.

​

Regulation in the United States

​

In the United States, the FDA regulates biologics under the Public Health Service Act (“PHSA”) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) and regulations and guidance implementing these laws. These laws and regulatory guidance are continually evolving.  By example, in March 2020, the U.S. Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, which includes various provisions regarding FDA drug shortage reporting requirements, as well as provisions regarding supply chain security, such as risk management plan requirements, and the promotion of supply chain redundancy and domestic manufacturing. The FDA has also issued a number of guidance documents concerning how sponsors and investigators may address COVID-19 challenges, including challenges specific to gene therapies. These guidance documents are continually evolving.

​

Obtaining regulatory approvals and ensuring compliance with applicable statutes and regulatory requirements entails the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources, including payment of user fees for applications to the FDA. All our current product candidates are subject to regulation by the FDA as biologics. An applicant seeking approval to market and distribute a new biologic in the United States must typically undertake the following:

​

Table of Contents

Human Clinical Studies in the United States under an IND

​

Before initiating clinical studies in the United States or under an IND, investigational product sponsors must first complete pre-clinical studies. Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of chemistry, pharmacology, toxicity, and product formulation, as well as animal studies to assess potential safety and efficacy. Such studies must generally be conducted in accordance with the FDA’s Good Laboratory Practices (“GLPs”).

​

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational biologic to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with current GCP requirements, which includes requirements for informed consent, study conduct, and IRB review and approval. A protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of an IND. INDs include preclinical study reports, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data, or literature, and proposed clinical study protocols among other things. A clinical trial may not proceed in the United States unless and until an IND becomes effective, which is 30 days after its receipt by the FDA. The FDA may raise concerns or questions related to one or more components of an IND and place the IND on clinical hold if during its review the FDA determines that study subjects would be exposed to significant risk of illness or injury the trial may be put on clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. Clinical holds also may be imposed by the FDA at any time before or during trials due to safety concerns or non-compliance.

​

The protocol and informed consent documents, as well as other subject communications must also be approved by an IRB that continues to oversee that trial. In the case of gene therapy studies, an IBC at the local level must also review and maintain oversight over the particular study, in addition to the IRB.  The FDA, an IRB, and IBC, or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk or that research requirements are not being met. Information about certain clinical trials, including results, must be submitted within specific timeframes for listing on the ClinicalTrials.gov website. Sponsors or distributors of investigational products for the diagnosis, monitoring, or treatment of one or more serious diseases or conditions must also have a publicly available policy on evaluating and responding to requests for expanded access requests. Investigators must also provide certain information to the clinical trial sponsors to allow the sponsors to make certain financial disclosures to the FDA.

​

Subsequent clinical protocols and amendments must also be submitted to an active IND but are not subject to the 30-day review period imposed on an original IND. Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must also be submitted at least annually to the FDA and the IRB and more frequently if serious adverse events or other significant safety information is found. There is a risk that once a new protocol or amendment is submitted to an active IND there may be an extended period before the FDA may comment or provide feedback. This may result in a need to modify an ongoing clinical trial to incorporate this feedback or even a clinical hold of the trial.  There is also risk that FDA may not provide comments or feedback but may ultimately disagree with the design of the study once a BLA is submitted.

​

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, which may overlap or be combined:

​

​

Table of Contents

In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, a BLA or BLA supplement for a new active ingredient, indication, dosage form, dosage regimen, or route of administration, must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations, and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements. Orphan products are also exempt from the PREA requirements.

The manufacture of investigational drugs and biologics for the conduct of human clinical trials is subject to cGMP requirements. Investigational drugs and biologics and active ingredients and therapeutic substances imported into the United States are also subject to regulation by the FDA. Further, the export of investigational products outside of the United States is subject to regulatory requirements of the receiving country as well as U.S. export requirements under the FDCA.

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

FDA Guidance Governing Gene Therapy Products

​

The FDA has issued various guidance documents regarding gene therapies that outline additional factors that the FDA will consider at each of the above stages of development and which relate to, among other things, the proper preclinical assessment of gene therapies; the chemistry, manufacturing, and control information that should be included in an IND application; the design and analysis of shedding studies for virus or bacteria based gene therapies; the proper design of tests to measure product potency in support of an IND or BLA application; and measures to observe delayed adverse effects in subjects and patients who have been exposed to gene therapies via long-term follow-up with associated regulatory reporting.

​

Compliance with cGMP Requirements

​

Manufacturers of biologics must comply with applicable cGMP regulations, including quality control and quality assurance and maintenance of records and documentation. Manufacturers and others involved in the manufacture and distribution of such products must also register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and provide the FDA a list of products manufactured at the facilities. Recently, the information that must be submitted to the FDA regarding manufactured products was expanded through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security, or CARES, Act to include the volume of drugs produced during the prior year. Establishments may be subject to periodic unannounced inspections by government authorities to ensure compliance with cGMPs and other laws. Discovery of non-compliance may result in the FDA placing restrictions on a product, manufacturer, or holder of an approved BLA, and may extend to requiring withdrawal of the product from the market, among other consequences. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications.

​

FDA Programs to Expedite Product Development

​

The FDA has several programs to expedite product development, including fast track designation and breakthrough therapy designation. These are outlined in specific FDA guidance. Under the fast track program, the sponsor of a biologic candidate may request the FDA to designate the product for a specific indication as a fast track product concurrent with or after the filing of the IND for the product candidate. To be eligible for a fast track designation, the FDA must determine that a product candidate is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrates the potential to address an unmet medical need. This may be demonstrated by clinical or nonclinical data. If granted, the benefits include greater interactions with the FDA and rolling review of sections of the BLA. In some cases, a fast track product may be eligible for accelerated approval or priority review.

​

Table of Contents

Moreover, under the provisions of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, enacted in 2012, a sponsor can request designation of a product candidate as a breakthrough therapy. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a product that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. Products designated as breakthrough therapies are eligible for rolling review, intensive guidance on an efficient development program beginning as early as Phase 1 trials, and a commitment from the FDA to involve senior managers and experienced review staff in a proactive collaborative, cross disciplinary review.

​

Biologics studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may receive accelerated approval, which means the FDA may approve the product based upon a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. A biologic candidate approved on this basis is subject to rigorous post-marketing compliance requirements, including the completion of Phase 4 or post-approval clinical trials to confirm the effect on the clinical endpoint. Failure to conduct required post-approval studies, or confirm a clinical benefit during post-marketing studies, will allow the FDA to withdraw the drug or biologic from the market on an expedited basis. All promotional materials for drug or biologic candidates approved under accelerated regulations are subject to prior review by the FDA.

​

Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

​

Submission of a BLA

​

The results of the preclinical and clinical studies, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacture, controls, and proposed labeling, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of a BLA requesting a license to market the product for one or more indications. The submission of a BLA is subject to an application user fee, products with orphan designation are exempt from the BLA filing fee. The sponsor of an approved BLA is also subject to annual program user fees for each. Orphan products may also be exempt from program fees provided that certain criteria are met. These fees are typically increased annually. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (“PDUFA”) the FDA has agreed to specified performance goals in the review of BLAs.

​

Most such applications are meant to be reviewed within ten months from the filing acceptance date (typically 60 days after date of filing), and most applications for priority review products are meant to be reviewed within six months of the filing acceptance date (typically 60 days after date of filing). Priority review designation may be assigned to product candidates that are intended to treat serious conditions and, if approved, would provide significant improvements in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of the serious condition.

​

The FDA may refuse to file an application and request additional information. In this event, the application must be refiled with the additional information. The refiled application is also subject to assessment of content before the FDA accepts it for review. Once the submission is accepted, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review. The FDA will assign a date for its final decision for the product (the PDUFA action date) but can extend this date to complete review of a product application. The PDUFA action date is only a goal, thus, the FDA does not always meet its PDUFA dates.

​

The FDA may also refer certain applications to an advisory committee. Before approving a product candidate for which no active ingredient (including any ester or salt of active ingredients) has previously been approved by the FDA, the FDA must either refer that product candidate to an external advisory committee or provide in an action letter, a summary of the reasons why the FDA did not refer the product candidate to an advisory committee. The FDA may also refer other product candidates to an advisory committee if the FDA believes that the advisory committee’s expertise would be beneficial. An advisory committee is typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, which review, evaluate, and make a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Table of Contents

The FDA reviews applications to determine, among other things, whether a product candidate meets the agency’s approval standards and whether the manufacturing methods and controls are adequate to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality, potency, and purity. Before approving a marketing application, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured, referred to as a Pre-Approval Inspection. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities, including contract manufacturers and subcontractors, are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving a marketing application the FDA will inspect one or more clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCPs.

After evaluating the marketing application and all related information, including the advisory committee recommendation, if any, and inspection reports regarding the manufacturing facilities and clinical trial sites, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a complete response letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the biological product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A complete response letter generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing or information for the FDA to reconsider the application. Even with submission of this additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. If and when those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the BLA, the FDA will issue an approval letter. Many drug applications receive complete response letters from the FDA during their first cycle of FDA review.

​

If the FDA approves a product, it may limit the approved indications for use of the product; require that contraindications, warnings, or precautions be included in the product labeling, including boxed warnings; require that post-approval studies, including Phase IV clinical trials, be conducted to further assess a biologic’s efficacy and safety after approval; or require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-market studies or surveillance programs. The FDA may also not approve label statements that are necessary for successful commercialization and marketing.

​

In addition to the above conditions of approval, the FDA also may require submission of a REMS to ensure that the benefits of the product candidate outweigh the risks. The REMS plan could include medication guides, physician communication plans, and elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries, or other risk minimization tools. An assessment of the REMS must also be conducted at set intervals. Following product approval, a REMS may also be required by the FDA if new safety information is discovered, and the FDA determines that a REMS is necessary to ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh the risks.  In guidance, FDA stated that during the review of a BLA for a gene therapy, it will assess whether a REMS is necessary.  Several gene therapy products that have been approved by FDA have required substantial REMS, which included requirements for dispensing hospital and clinic certification, training, adverse event reporting, documentation, and audits and monitoring conducted by the sponsor, among other conditions. REMS, such as these, can be expensive and burdensome to implement, and burdensome for hospitals, clinics, and health care providers to comply with.

​

Biosimilars and Exclusivity

​

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”) which amended the PHSA authorized the FDA to approve biosimilars under Section 351(k) of the PHSA. Under the BCPIA, a manufacturer may submit an application for licensure of a biologic product that is biosimilar to or interchangeable with a previously approved biological product or reference product. For the FDA to approve a biosimilar product, it must find that it is highly similar to the reference product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components and that there are no clinically meaningful differences between the reference product and proposed biosimilar product in safety, purity or potency. A finding of interchangeability requires that a product is determined to be biosimilar to the reference product, and that the product can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product and, for products administered multiple times, the biologic and the reference biologic may be switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic.

​

Table of Contents

An application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following approval of the reference product, and it may not be approved until 12 years thereafter. These exclusivity provisions only apply to biosimilar companies and not companies that rely on their own data and file a full BLA. Moreover, this exclusivity is not without limitation. Certain changes and supplements to an approved BLA, and subsequent applications filed by the same sponsor, manufacturer, licensor, predecessor in interest, or other related entity do not qualify for the twelve-year exclusivity period.  Further, the twelve-year exclusivity market period in the U.S. for biologics has been controversial and may be shortened in the future.

The PHSA also includes provisions to protect reference products that have patent protection. The biosimilar product sponsor and reference product sponsor may exchange certain patent and product information for the purpose of determining whether there should be a legal patent challenge. Based on the outcome of negotiations surrounding the exchanged information, the reference product sponsor may bring a patent infringement suit and injunction proceedings against the biosimilar product sponsor. The biosimilar applicant may also be able to bring an action for declaratory judgment concerning the patent.

To increase competition in the drug and biologic product marketplace, Congress, the executive branch, and the FDA have taken certain legislative and regulatory steps. By example, in 2020 the FDA finalized a guidance to facilitate biologic product importation. Moreover, the 2020 Further Consolidated Appropriations Act included provisions requiring that sponsors of approved biologic products, including those subject to REMS, provide samples of the approved products to persons developing biosimilar products within specified timeframes, in sufficient quantities, and on commercially reasonable market-based terms. Failure to do so can subject the approved product sponsor to civil actions, penalties, and responsibility for attorney’s fees and costs of the civil action. This same bill also includes provisions with respect to shared and separate REMS programs for reference and generic drug products.

Orphan Drug Exclusivity

​

Under the Orphan Drug Act of 1983, the FDA may designate a biological product as an orphan drug if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or more in cases in which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making a biological product available in the United States for treatment of the disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product. Additionally, sponsors must present a plausible hypothesis for clinical superiority to obtain orphan drug designation if there is a product already approved by the FDA that is considered by the FDA to be the same as the already approved product and is intended for the same indication. This hypothesis must be demonstrated to obtain orphan exclusivity. If a product with orphan designation receives the first FDA approval, it will be granted seven years of marketing exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications for the same product for the same indication for seven years, unless clinical superiority is demonstrated. Competitors may receive approval of different products for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity and may obtain approval for the same product but for a different indication. Orphan product designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process. The FDA has granted orphan drug designation to AMT-130 for the treatment of Huntington’s disease as well as for etranacogene dezaparvovec; meaning that they would receive orphan drug exclusivity if they are the first products approved for their respective indications. Orphan product sameness decisions are an evolving space when it comes to gene therapies. Specifically, the FDA has issued guidance regarding how it will determine whether a gene therapy product is the same as another product for the purpose of the agency’s orphan drug regulations. Any of the FDA sameness determinations could impact our ability to receive approval for our product candidates and to obtain or retain orphan drug exclusivity.

​

Pediatric Exclusivity

​

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003, pediatric exclusivity provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing regulatory exclusivity in the US, including orphan exclusivity and exclusivity against biosimilars. This six-month exclusivity may be granted if the FDA issues a written request to the sponsor for the pediatric study, the sponsor submits a final study report after receipt of the written request and meets the terms and timelines in the FDA’s written request.

​

Table of Contents

Regenerative Advanced Therapy Designation

​

The 21^st Century Cures Act became law in December 2016 and created a new program under Section 3033 in which the FDA has authority to designate a product as a regenerative medicine advanced therapy (“RMAT”). A drug is eligible for a RMAT designation if: 1) it is a regenerative medicine therapy which is a cell therapy, therapeutic tissue engineering product, human cell and tissue product, or any combination product using such therapies or products, except those products already regulated under Section 361 of the PHSA; 2) the drug is intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition; and 3) preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug has the potential to address unmet medical needs for such disease or condition. A RMAT must be made with the submission of an IND or as an amendment to an existing IND. FDA will determine if a product is eligible for RMAT designation within 60 days of submission. Advantages of the RMAT designation include all the benefits of the fast track and breakthrough therapy designation programs, including early interactions with the FDA. These early interactions may be used to discuss potential surrogate or intermediate endpoints to support accelerated approval.  In 2019 the FDA stated in guidance that human gene therapies, including genetically modified cells, that lead to a sustained effect on cells or tissues, may meet the definition of a regenerative therapy.  

​

FDA Regulation of Companion Diagnostics and Other Combination Products

​

We may seek to develop companion diagnostics for use in identifying patients that we believe will respond to our gene therapies. Similarly, our product candidates may require delivery devices. A biologic product may be regulated as a combination product if it is intended for use in conjunction with a medical device, such as a drug delivery device or in vitro diagnostic device. For combination products, the biologic and device components must, when used together, be safe and effective and the product labeling must reflect their combined use. In some cases, the medical device component may require a separate premarket submission. Moreover, clinical trial sponsors using investigational devices in their studies must comply with FDA’s investigational device exemption regulations. Once approved or cleared, the device component sponsor (or the combination product sponsor, if both components are covered by one application) must comply with the FDA’s post-market device requirements, including establishment registration, device listing, device labeling, unique device identifier, quality system regulation, medical device reporting, and reporting of corrections and removals requirements.

​

If the safety or effectiveness of a biologic product is dependent on the results of a diagnostic, the FDA may require that the in vitro companion diagnostic device and biologic product be contemporaneously approved, with labeling that describes the use of the two products together.  The type of premarket submission required for a companion diagnostic device will depend on the FDA device classification. A premarket approval (“PMA”), application is required for high risk devices classified as Class III; a 510(k) premarket notification is required for moderate risk devices classified as Class II; and a de novo request may be used for novel devices not previously classified by the FDA that are low or moderate risk. Except in some limited circumstances, the FDA generally will not approve a biologic that is dependent upon the use of a companion diagnostic device if the device is not contemporaneously FDA-approved or -cleared.

Post-approval Requirements

Any products manufactured or distributed pursuant to the FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements related to manufacturing, recordkeeping, and reporting, including adverse experience reporting, deviation reporting, shortage reporting, and periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, advertising, marketing, promotion, certain electronic records and signatures, and post-approval obligations imposed as a condition of approval, such as Phase 4 clinical trials, REMS, and surveillance to assess safety and effectiveness after commercialization.

After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing annual program user fee requirements for approved products, excluding orphan products. Regulatory authorities may withdraw product approvals, require label modifications, or request product recalls, among other actions, if a company fails to comply with regulatory standards, if it encounters problems following initial marketing, or if previously unrecognized problems are subsequently discovered.

Table of Contents

Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval or notification before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and specifications and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon the sponsor and any third-party manufacturers that the sponsor may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance.

The FDA also strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising, and promotion of products that are placed on the market. A company can make only those claims relating to a product that are approved by the FDA. Physicians, in their independent professional medical judgment, may prescribe legally available products for unapproved indications that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested and approved by the FDA. Biopharmaceutical companies, however, are required to promote their products only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability, including, but not limited to, criminal and civil penalties under the FDCA and False Claims Act, exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs, mandatory compliance programs under corporate integrity agreements, suspension and debarment from government contracts, and refusal of orders under existing government contracts.

In addition, the distribution of prescription biopharmaceutical samples is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (the “PDMA”), which regulates the distribution of samples at the federal level. Both the PDMA and state laws limit the distribution of prescription biopharmaceutical product. Certain reporting related to samples is also required samples and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution. Free trial or starter prescriptions provided through pharmacies are also subject to regulations under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and potential liability under anti-kickback and false claims laws.

Moreover, the enacted Drug Quality and Security Act (“DQSA”), imposes obligations on sponsors of biopharmaceutical products related to product tracking and tracing. Among the requirements of this legislation, sponsors are required to provide certain information regarding the products to individuals and entities to which product ownership is transferred, are required to label products with a product identifier, and are required to keep certain records regarding the product. The transfer of information to subsequent product owners by sponsors is also required to be done electronically. Sponsors must also verify that purchasers of the sponsors’ products are appropriately licensed. Further, under this legislation, manufactures have product investigation, quarantine, disposition, and notification responsibilities related to counterfeit, diverted, stolen, and intentionally adulterated products that would result in serious adverse health consequences of death to humans, as well as products that are the subject of fraudulent transactions or which are otherwise unfit for distribution such that they would be reasonably likely to result in serious health consequences or death. Similar requirements additionally are and will be imposed through this legislation on other companies within the biopharmaceutical product supply chain, such as distributors and dispensers, as well as certain sponsor licensees and affiliates.

Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements before or after approval, may result in significant regulatory actions. Such actions may include refusal to approve pending applications, license or approval suspension or revocation, imposition of a clinical hold or termination of clinical trials, warning letters, untitled letters, cyber letters, modification of promotional materials or labeling, provision of corrective information, imposition of post-market requirements including the need for additional testing, imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS, product recalls, product seizures or detentions, refusal to allow imports or exports, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, FDA debarment, injunctions, fines, consent decrees, corporate integrity agreements, suspension and debarment from government contracts, and refusal of orders under existing government contracts, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs, restitution, disgorgement, or civil or criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment, and adverse publicity, among other adverse consequences.

Additional controls for biologics

To help reduce the increased risk of the introduction of adventitious agents, the PHSA emphasizes the importance of manufacturing controls for products whose attributes cannot be precisely defined. The PHSA also provides authority to the FDA to immediately suspend licenses in situations where there exists a danger to public health, to prepare or procure products in the event of shortages and critical public health needs, and to authorize the creation and enforcement of regulations to prevent the introduction or spread of communicable diseases in the United States and between states.

Table of Contents

After a BLA is approved, the product may also be subject to official lot release as a condition of approval. As part of the manufacturing process, the manufacturer is required to perform certain tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. If the product is subject to official release by the FDA, the manufacturer submits samples of each lot of product to the FDA together with a release protocol showing the results of all the manufacturer’s tests performed on the lot. The FDA may also perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of some products before releasing the lots for distribution by the manufacturer.

In addition, the FDA conducts laboratory research related to the regulatory standards on the safety, purity, potency, and effectiveness of biological products.

     Certain gene therapy studies are also subject to the National Institutes of Health’s Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules, (“NIH Guidelines”). The NIH Guidelines include the review of the study by an IBC. The IBC assesses the compliance of the research with the NIH Guidelines, assesses the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment. The FDA has also issued guidance with respect to gene therapies, such as guidance concerning preclinical studies, chemistry manufacturing and controls, potency testing, and long-term patient and clinical study subject follow up and regulatory reporting. The FDA further issued a draft guidance specific to the development of gene therapy products for neurodegenerative diseases as such products may face special challenges.

Patent Term Restoration

If approved, biologic products may also be eligible for periods of U.S. patent term restoration. If granted, patent term restoration extends the patent life of a single unexpired patent, that has not previously been extended, for a maximum of five years. The total patent life of the product with the extension also cannot exceed fourteen years from the product’s approval date. Subject to the prior limitations, the period of the extension is calculated by adding half of the time from the effective date of an IND to the initial submission of a marketing application, and all the time between the submission of the marketing application and its approval. This period may also be reduced by any time that the applicant did not act with due diligence.

Anti-Kickback Provisions and other Fraud and Abuse Requirements

​

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting, or receiving remuneration directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering, or arranging for the purchase, lease or order of any healthcare item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid or other federally financed healthcare programs, in whole or in part. This statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on the one hand and prescribers, purchasers and formulary managers on the other. The term “remuneration” has been interpreted broadly to include anything of value. The Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between biopharmaceutical industry members on one hand and prescribers, purchasers, formulary managers, and beneficiaries on the other. There are certain statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution. The exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly, and practices that involve remuneration that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchases, or recommendations may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. Failure to meet all the requirements of a particular applicable statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor does not make the conduct per se illegal under the Anti-Kickback Statute. Instead, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a cumulative review of all its facts and circumstances.

​

Table of Contents

The Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) recently promulgated a regulation with respect to the safe harbors that is effective in two phases.  First, the regulation excludes from the definition of “remuneration” limited categories of (a) Pharmacy Benefit Manager (“PBM”) rebates or other reductions in price to a plan sponsor under Medicare Part D or a Medicaid Managed Care Organization plan reflected in point-of sale reductions in price and (b) PBM service fees. Second, as amended, effective January 1, 2023, the regulation expressly provides that rebates to plan sponsors under Medicare Part D either directly to the plan sponsor under Medicare Part D, or indirectly through a pharmacy benefit manager will not be protected under the anti-kickback discount safe harbor. Several courts have interpreted the statute’s intent requirement to mean that if any one purpose of an arrangement involving remuneration is to induce referrals of federal healthcare covered business, including purchases of products paid by federal healthcare programs, the statute has been violated. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, of 2010, as amended, (the “ACA”) modified the intent requirement under the Anti-Kickback Statute to a stricter standard, such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it to have committed a violation. In addition, the ACA also provided that a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute is grounds for the government or a whistleblower to assert that a claim for payment of items or services resulting from such violation constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act.

​

Federal civil false claims laws prohibit any person from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment to, or approval by, the federal government, knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to the federal government, or avoiding, decreasing, or concealing an obligation to pay money to the federal government. A claim includes “any request or demand” for money or property presented to the U.S. government. The civil False Claims Act has been used to assert liability on the basis of kickbacks and other improper referrals, improperly reported government pricing metrics such as Best Price or Average Manufacturer Price, improper use of Medicare provider or supplier numbers when detailing a provider of services, improper promotion of off-label uses not expressly approved by the FDA in a product’s label, and allegations as to misrepresentations with respect to products, contract requirements, and services rendered. In addition, private payers have been filing follow-on lawsuits alleging fraudulent misrepresentation, although establishing liability and damages in these cases is more difficult than under the FCA. Intent to deceive is not required to establish liability under the civil False Claims Act. Rather, a claim may be false for deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information provided or acts in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of that information. Civil False Claims Act actions may be brought by the government or may be brought by private individuals on behalf of the government, called “qui tam” actions. If the government decides to intervene in a qui tam action and prevails in the lawsuit, the individual will share in the proceeds from any fines or settlement funds. If the government declines to intervene, the individual may pursue the case alone. The civil FCA provides for treble damages and a civil penalty for each false claim, such as an invoice or pharmacy claim for reimbursement, which can aggregate into millions of dollars. For these reasons, since 2004, False Claims Act lawsuits against biopharmaceutical companies have increased significantly in volume and breadth, leading to several substantial civil and criminal settlements, as much as $3.0 billion, regarding certain sales practices and promoting off label uses. Civil False Claims act liability may further be imposed for known Medicare or Medicaid overpayments, for example, overpayments caused by understated rebate amounts, that are not refunded within 60 days of discovering the overpayment, even if the overpayment was not caused by a false or fraudulent act. In addition, conviction, or civil judgment for violating the FCA may result in exclusion from federal health care programs, and suspension and debarment from government contracts, and refusal of orders under existing government contracts. The majority of states also have statutes or regulations similar to the federal anti-kickback law and false claims laws, which apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payer.

​

The government may further prosecute conduct constituting a false claim under the criminal False Claims Act. The criminal False Claims Act prohibits the making or presenting of a claim to the government knowing such claim to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent and, unlike the civil False Claims Act, requires proof of intent to submit a false claim.

​

The civil monetary penalties statute is another potential statute under which biopharmaceutical companies may be subject to enforcement. Among other things, the civil monetary penalties statue imposes fines against any person who is determined to have knowingly presented, or caused to be presented, claims to a federal healthcare program that the person knows, or should know, is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent.

​

Table of Contents

Payment or reimbursement of prescription therapeutics by Medicaid or Medicare requires sponsors to submit certified pricing information to Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”). The Medicaid Drug Rebate statute requires sponsors to calculate and report price points, which are used to determine Medicaid rebate payments shared between the states and the federal government and Medicaid payment rates for certain therapeutics. For therapeutics paid under Medicare Part B, sponsors must also calculate and report their Average Sales Price, which is used to determine the Medicare Part B payment rate. In addition, therapeutics covered by Medicaid are subject to an additional inflation penalty which can substantially increase rebate payments. For products approved under a BLA (including biosimilars), the Veterans Health Care Act, (the “VHCA”), requires sponsors to calculate and report to the Veterans Administration, or VA, a different price called the Non-Federal Average Manufacturing Price, which is used to determine the maximum price that can be charged to certain federal agencies, referred to as the Federal Ceiling Price, (“FCP”). Like the Medicaid rebate amount, the FCP includes an inflation penalty. A Department of Defense regulation requires sponsors to provide this discount on therapeutics dispensed by retail pharmacies when paid by the TRICARE Program. All these price reporting requirements create risk of submitting false information to the government, potential FCA liability and exclusion from certain of these programs.

​

The VHCA also requires sponsors of covered therapeutics participating in the Medicaid program to enter into Federal Supply Schedule contracts with the VA through which their covered therapeutics must be sold to certain federal agencies at FCP. This necessitates compliance with applicable federal procurement laws and regulations, including submission of commercial sales and pricing information, and subjects companies to contractual remedies as well as administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions. In addition, the VHCA requires sponsors participating in Medicaid to agree to provide different mandatory discounts to certain Public Health Service grantees and other safety net hospitals and clinics under the 340B program based on the sponsor’s reported Medicaid pricing information. The 340B program has its own regulatory authority to impose sanctions for non-compliance and adjudicate overcharge claims against sponsors by the purchasing entities and, impose civil monetary penalties for instances of overcharging.

​

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996,  (“HIPAA”), also created federal criminal statutes that prohibit, among other actions, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud or to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, any of the money or property owned by, or under the custody or control of, a healthcare benefit program, regardless of whether the payor is public or private, in connection with the delivery or payment for health care benefits, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a health care benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a health care offense and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing, or covering up by any trick or device a material fact or making any materially false statements in connection with the delivery of, or payment for, healthcare benefits, items, or services relating to healthcare matters. Additionally, the ACA amended the intent requirement of certain of these criminal statutes under HIPAA so that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute, or the specific intent to violate it, to have committed a violation.

​

In addition, as part of the ACA, the federal government enacted the Physician Payment Sunshine Act. Manufacturers of drugs biologics and devices for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) are required to annually report to CMS payments and transfers of value made to or at the request of covered recipients, such as, but not limited to, physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, and certified registered nurse anesthetists and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family. Payments made to physicians and certain research institutions for clinical trials are also included within this law. Reported information is made publicly available by CMS.  Failure to submit required information may result in civil monetary penalties. If not preempted by this federal law, several states currently also require reporting of marketing and promotion expenses, as well as gifts and payments to healthcare professionals. State legislation may also prohibit various other marketing related activities or require the public posting of information. Certain states also require companies to implement compliance programs.

Table of Contents

Further, we may be subject to data privacy and security regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, (“HITECH Act”), and their respective implementing regulations impose certain requirements on covered entities relating to the privacy, security, and transmission of individually identifiable health information, known as protected health information. Among other things, the HITECH Act, through its implementing regulations, makes HIPAA’s security standards and certain privacy standards directly applicable to business associates, defined as a person or organization, other than a member of a covered entity’s workforce, that creates, receives, maintains, or transmits protected health information on behalf of a covered entity for a function or activity regulated by HIPAA.  The HITECH Act also strengthened the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed against covered entities, business associates, and individuals, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, other federal and state laws, such as the California Consumer Privacy Act, may govern the privacy and security of health and other information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not be preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Many states have also adopted laws similar to each of the above federal laws, which may be broader in scope and apply to items or services reimbursed by any third-party payor, including commercial insurers. Certain state laws also regulate sponsors’ use of prescriber-identifiable data. Certain states also require implementation of commercial compliance programs and compliance with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the applicable compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government, or otherwise restrict payments or the provision of other items of value that may be made to healthcare providers and other potential referral sources; impose restrictions on marketing practices; or require sponsors to track and report information related to payments, gifts, and other items of value to physicians and other healthcare providers. Recently, states have enacted or are considering legislation intended to make drug prices more transparent and deter significant price increases. These laws may affect our future sales, marketing, and other promotional activities by imposing administrative and compliance burdens.

​

If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws or regulations described above or any other laws that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties or other enforcement actions, including criminal and significant civil monetary penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs, corporate integrity agreements, suspension and debarment from government contracts, and refusal of orders under existing government contracts, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our business.

​

U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

​

The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, to which we are subject, prohibits corporations and individuals from engaging in certain activities to obtain or retain business or to influence a person working in an official capacity. It is illegal to pay, offer to pay or authorize the payment of anything of value to any foreign government official, government staff member, political party, or political candidate in an attempt to obtain or retain business or to otherwise influence a person working in an official capacity.

​

Table of Contents

Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

​

The containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal, state, and foreign governments, and the prices of drugs have been a focus in this effort. Third-party payers and independent non-profit healthcare research organizations such as the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review are also increasingly challenging the prices charged for medical products and services and examining the medical necessity, budget-impact, and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy. If these third-party payers do not consider a product to be cost-effective compared to other available therapies and/or the standard of care, they may not cover the product after approval as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, measures including prior authorization and step-throughs could be required, manufacturer rebates may be negotiated or required and/or the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow a company to sell its products at a profit. The U.S. federal and state governments and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost containment programs to limit the growth of government-paid health care costs, including price controls, restrictions on coverage and reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products for branded prescription drugs. In this regard, for example, on November 27, 2020, CMS issued an interim final rule implementing a Most Favored Nation payment model under which reimbursement for certain Medicare Part B drugs and biologicals will be based on a price that reflects the lowest per capital Gross Domestic Product-adjusted (“GDP-adjusted”) price of any non-U.S. member country of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (“OECD”) with a GDP per capita that is at least sixty percent of the U.S. GDP per capita. Adoption of additional healthcare reform controls and measures and tightening of restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could limit payments for pharmaceuticals.

​

As a result, the marketability of any product which receives regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if the government and third-party payers choose to provide low coverage and reimbursement. In addition, an increasing emphasis on managed care in the United States has increased and will continue to increase the pressure on drug pricing. Coverage policies, third party reimbursement rates and drug pricing regulation may change at any time. In particular, the ACA contains provisions that may reduce the profitability of drug products, including, for example, increased rebates for drugs sold to Medicaid programs, extension of Medicaid rebates to Medicaid managed care plans, mandatory discounts for certain Medicare Part D beneficiaries and annual fees based on pharmaceutical companies’ share of sales to federal health care programs. Multiple other current and proposed legislative and regulatory efforts require and likely will in the future require payment of increased manufacturer rebates and implement mechanisms to reduce drug prices. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products that receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

​

Regulation in the European Union

​

Product development, the regulatory approval process and safety monitoring of medicinal products and their manufacturers in the European Union proceed broadly in the same way as they do in the United States. Therefore, many of the issues discussed above apply similarly in the context of the European Union. In addition, drugs are subject to the extensive price and reimbursement regulations of the various EU member states. The Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC, as amended (“CTD”) (and to be replaced by the Clinical Trial Regulation EU 536/2014) (“CTR”) (it is anticipated by December 2021), provides a system for the approval of clinical trials in the European Union via (in the case of the CTD) implementation through national legislation of the member states. The CTR is directly applicable in all member states without the need for national implementation. Under this system, approval must be obtained from the competent national authority of an EU member state in which the clinical trial is to be conducted. Once the CTR comes into effect however, it will be possible within the EU to make a single harmonized electronic submission and have a single assessment process for clinical trials conducted in multiple member states. Furthermore, a clinical trial may only be started after a competent ethics committee has issued a favorable opinion on the clinical trial application (“CTA”), which must be supported by an investigational medicinal product dossier with supporting information prescribed by the CTD and corresponding national laws of the member states and further detailed in applicable guidance documents. In the case of Advanced Therapy Investigational Medical Products (“ATIMPs”) consisting of or containing Genetically Modified Organisms (“GMOs”), as is the case for uniQure’s products, an additional approval for the environmental and biosafety aspects of the use and release of the GMO is required by the GMO competent authorities and GMO directives have been implemented in different ways by Member States; either following the directive for “Contained use” (Directive 2009/41/EC) or “deliberate release” (Directive2001/18/EC). This results in some EU member states, the GMO application must be approved before the Clinical Trial Application (CTA) is submitted, in some after approval of the CTA and in some parallel.

​

Table of Contents

The sponsor of a clinical trial, or its legal representative, must be based in the European Economic Area (“EEA”). European regulators and ethics committees also require the submission of adverse event reports during a study and a copy of the final study report. When the CTR comes into force member states may dispense with the requirement for a legal representative for a non-EU resident sponsor provided there is a contact person based in the EEA.

​

Marketing approval

​

Marketing approvals under the European Union regulatory system may be obtained through a centralized or decentralized procedure. The centralized procedure results in the grant of a single marketing authorization that is valid for all—currently 28—EU member states. Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, as amended, the centralized procedure is mandatory for drugs developed by means of specified biotechnological processes, and advanced therapy medicinal products as defined in Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007, as amended. Drugs for human use containing a new active substance for which the therapeutic indication is the treatment of specified diseases, including but not limited to acquired immune deficiency syndrome, neurodegenerative disorders, auto-immune diseases and other immune dysfunctions, as well as drugs designated as orphan drugs pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 141/2000, as amended, also fall within the mandatory scope of the centralized procedure. Because of our focus on gene therapies, which fall within the category of advanced therapy medicinal products (“ATMPs”) and orphan indications, our products and product candidates will need to go through the centralized procedure.

​

In the marketing authorization application (“MAA”) the applicant must properly and sufficiently demonstrate the quality, safety, and efficacy of the drug. Guidance on the factors that the EMA will consider in relation to the development and evaluation of ATMPs have been issued and include, among other things, the preclinical studies required to characterize ATMPs; the manufacturing and control information that should be submitted in a MAA; and post-approval measures required to monitor patients and evaluate the long-term efficacy and potential adverse reactions of ATMPs. Although these guidelines are not legally binding, we believe that our compliance will effectively be necessary to gain and maintain approval for any of our product candidates. The maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA under the centralized procedure is 210 days after receipt of a valid application subject to clock stops during which the applicant deals with EMA questions.

​

Market access can be expedited through the grant of conditional authorization for a medicine that may fulfil unmet needs which may be granted provided that the benefit-risk balance of the product is positive. The benefit-risk balance is likely to be positive if the applicant can provide comprehensive data and the benefit to public health of the medicinal product's immediate availability on the market outweighs the risks due to need for further data. Such authorizations are valid for one year and can be renewed annually. The holder will be required to complete specific obligations (ongoing or new studies, and in some cases additional activities) with a view to providing comprehensive data confirming that the benefit-risk balance is positive. Once comprehensive data on the product have been obtained, the marketing authorization may be converted into a standard marketing authorization (not subject to specific obligations). Initially, this is valid for 5 years, but can be renewed for unlimited validity. Applicants for conditional authorizations can benefit from early dialogue with EMA through scientific advice or protocol assistance and discuss their development plan well in advance of the submission of a marketing-authorization application. Other stakeholders (e.g., health technology assessment bodies) can be included.

​

In addition, the priority medicines (PRIME) scheme for medicines that may offer a major therapeutic advantage over existing treatments, or benefit patients without treatment options based on early clinical data, is intended to support the development of medicines that target an unmet medical need. This voluntary scheme is based on enhanced interaction and early dialogue with developers of promising medicines, to optimize development plans and speed up evaluation so these medicines can reach patients earlier. Early dialogue and scientific advice also ensure that patients only participate in trials designed to provide the data necessary for an application, making the best use of limited resources.

​

Table of Contents

The European Union also provides for a system of regulatory data and market exclusivity. According to Article 14(11) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, as amended, and Article 10 of Directive 2001/83/EC, as amended, upon receiving marketing authorization, new chemical entities approved on the basis of complete independent data package benefit from eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity. Data exclusivity prevents regulatory authorities in the European Union from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic (abbreviated) application during the eight-year period from when the first placement of the product on the EEA market. During the additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic marketing authorization can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic medicinal product can be marketed until the expiration of the market exclusivity. The overall ten-year period will be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. Even if a compound is considered to be a new chemical entity and the innovator can gain the period of data exclusivity, another company nevertheless could also market another version of the drug if such company obtained marketing authorization based on an MAA with a complete independent data package of pharmaceutical test, preclinical tests, and clinical trials. The EMA has also issued guidelines for a comprehensive comparability exercise for biosimilars, and for specific classes of biological products.

​

Under Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 article 3 as amended (Orphan Drug Regulation, (“ODR”)) a product can benefit from orphan drug status if it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than five in 10,000 people in the European Community (EC) when the application is made. The principal benefit of such status is 10 years’ market exclusivity once they are approved preventing the subsequent approval of similar medicines with similar indications although this may be reduced to six years under certain circumstances including if the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity.

​

Additional rules apply to medicinal products for pediatric use under Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006, as amended. Potential incentives include a six-month extension of any supplementary protection certificate granted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 469/2009, however not in cases in which the relevant product is designated as an orphan medicinal product pursuant to the ODR. Instead, medicinal products designated as orphan medicinal product may enjoy an extension of the ten-year market exclusivity period granted under Regulation (EC) No 141/2000, as amended, to twelve years subject to the conditions applicable to orphan drugs.

​

Manufacturing and promotion

​

Pursuant to Commission Directive 2003/94/EC as transposed into the national laws of the member states, the manufacturing of investigational medicinal products and approved drugs is subject to a separate manufacturer’s license and must be conducted in strict compliance with cGMP requirements, which mandate the methods, facilities, and controls used in manufacturing, processing, and packing of drugs to assure their safety and identity. Manufacturers must have at least one qualified person permanently and continuously at their disposal. The qualified person is ultimately responsible for certifying that each batch of finished product released onto the market has been manufactured in accordance with cGMP and the specifications set out in the marketing authorization or investigational medicinal product dossier. cGMP requirements are enforced through mandatory registration of facilities and inspections of those facilities. Failure to comply with these requirements could interrupt supply and result in delays, unanticipated costs, and lost revenues, and subject the applicant to potential legal or regulatory action, including but not limited to warning letters, suspension of manufacturing, seizure of product, injunctive action, or possible civil and criminal penalties.

​

Advertising

​

In the European Union, the promotion of prescription medicines is subject to intense regulation and control, including a prohibition on direct-to-consumer advertising. All medicines advertising must be consistent with the product’s approved summary of products characteristics, factual, accurate, balanced and not misleading. Advertising of medicines pre-approval or off-label is prohibited. Some jurisdictions require that all promotional materials for prescription medicines be subjected to either prior internal or regulatory review & approval.

Table of Contents

Other Regulatory Requirements

​

A holder of a marketing authorization for a medicinal product is legally obliged to fulfill several obligations by virtue of its status as a marketing authorization holder (“MAH”). The MAH can delegate the performance of related tasks to third parties, such as distributors or marketing collaborators, provided that this delegation is appropriately documented and the MAH maintains legal responsibility and liability.

​

The obligations of an MAH include:

​

​

We may hold any future marketing authorizations granted for our product candidates in our own name or appoint an affiliate or a collaborator to hold marketing authorizations on our behalf. Any failure by an MAH to comply with these obligations may result in regulatory action against an MAH and ultimately threaten our ability to commercialize our products.

​

Reimbursement

​

In the European Union, the pricing and reimbursement mechanisms by private and public health insurers vary largely by country and even within countries. In respect of the public systems, reimbursement for standard drugs is determined by guidelines established by the legislature or responsible national authority. Some jurisdictions operate positive and negative list systems under which products may only be marketed once a reimbursement price has been agreed. Other member states allow companies to determine the prices for their medicines but monitor and control company profits and may limit or restrict reimbursement and can include retrospective rebates to the Government. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription drugs, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products and some of EU countries require the completion of studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. Special pricing and reimbursement rules may apply to orphan drugs.

​

Inclusion of orphan drugs in reimbursement systems tend to focus on the medical usefulness, need, quality and economic benefits to patients and the healthcare system as for any drug. Acceptance of any medicinal product for reimbursement may come with cost, use and often volume restrictions, which again can vary by country. In addition, results-based rules or agreements on reimbursement may apply. Recently, a process has been formalized that allows sponsors to receive parallel advice from EMA and relevant national health technology assessment (“HTA”) bodies for pivotal clinical studies designed to support marketing approval. This process was followed for etranacogene dezaparvovec.

​

Table of Contents

Orphan Drug Regulation

​

We have been granted orphan drug exclusivity for etranacogene dezaparvovec for the treatment of hemophilia B as well as for AMT-130 for the treatment of Huntington’s disease subject to the conditions applicable to orphan drug exclusivity in the European Union. Regulation (EC) No 141/2000, as amended, states that a drug will be designated as an orphan drug if its sponsor can establish:

​

​

Regulation (EC) No 847/2000 sets out further provisions for implementation of the criteria for designation of a drug as an orphan drug. An application for the designation of a drug as an orphan drug must be submitted at any stage of development of the drug before filing of a marketing authorization application.

​

If an EU-wide community marketing authorization in respect of an orphan drug is granted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, as amended, the European Union and the member states will not, for a period of 10 years, accept another application for a marketing authorization, or grant a marketing authorization or accept an application to extend an existing marketing authorization, for the same therapeutic indication, in respect of a similar drug.

​

This period may however be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established, in respect of the drug concerned, that the criteria for orphan drug designation are no longer met, in other words, when it is shown on the basis of available evidence that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a marketing authorization may be granted, for the same therapeutic indication, to a similar drug if:

​

​

Regulation (EC) No 847/2000 lays down definitions of the concepts similar drug and clinical superiority, which concepts have been expanded upon in subsequent Commission guidance. Other incentives available to orphan drugs in the European Union include financial incentives such as a reduction of fees or fee waivers and protocol assistance. Orphan drug designation does not shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.

​

Table of Contents

Human Capital Resources

​

As of December 31, 2020, we had a total of 332 employees, 162 of whom are based in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and 170 in Lexington, Massachusetts, United States of America. As of December 31, 2020, 62 of our employees had an M.D. or Ph.D. degree, or the foreign equivalent. During 2017, we established a works council in the Netherlands. None of our employees are subject to collective bargaining or other labor organizations. We believe that we have good relations with all our employees and with the works council in the Netherlands.

​

Our values are to:

​

Development of our culture is reflected as part of our annual corporate goals. We invest in numerous learning opportunities focused on individual, management and team development and other initiatives to support our employees and build our culture.

​

Corporate Information

​

uniQure B.V. (the “Company”) was incorporated on January 9, 2012 as a private company with limited liability (besloten vennootschap met beperkte aansprakelijkheid) under the laws of the Netherlands. We are a leader in the field of gene therapy and seek to deliver to patients suffering from rare and other devastating diseases single treatments with potentially curative results. Our business was founded in 1998 and was initially operated through our predecessor company, Amsterdam Molecular Therapeutics Holding N.V (“AMT”). In 2012, AMT undertook a corporate reorganization, pursuant to which uniQure B.V. acquired the entire business and assets of AMT and completed a share-for-share exchange with the shareholders of AMT. Effective February 10, 2014, in connection with the initial public offering, we converted into a public company with limited liability (naamloze vennootschap) and changed its legal name from uniQure B.V. to uniQure N.V.

​

We are registered in the trade register of the Dutch Chamber of Commerce (Kamer van Koophandel) under number 54385229. Our headquarters are in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and its registered office is located at Paasheuvelweg 25a, Amsterdam 1105 BP, the Netherlands and its telephone number is +31 20 240 6000.

​

From our initial public offering until December 31, 2018, we were an emerging growth company, as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012. On the last business day of our second quarter in fiscal year 2018 the aggregate worldwide market value of ordinary shares held by our non-affiliate shareholders exceeded $700.0 million. As a result, as of December 31, 2018, we were considered a large accelerated filer and as a consequence lost our status as an emerging growth company.

​

Our website address is www.uniqure.com. We make available free of charge through our Internet website our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K, and any amendments to these reports, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish such material to, the SEC. Also available through our website’s “Investors & Newsroom: Corporate Governance” page are charters for the Audit, Compensation and Nominations and Corporate Governance committees of our board of directors and our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics. We are not including the information on our website as a part of, nor incorporating it by reference into, this report.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Risks Related to the Current COVID-19 Pandemic

Our business and operations have been, and may continue to be, materially and adversely affected by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

The ongoing outbreak of COVID-19 originated in Wuhan, China, in December 2019 and has since spread to multiple countries, including the United States and the Netherlands. On March 11, 2020, the WHO declared the outbreak a pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic is affecting the United States and global economies and has affected and may continue to affect our operations and those of third parties on which we rely. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused and may continue to cause disruptions in our raw material supply, our commercial-scale manufacturing capabilities for AAV-based gene therapies, the development of our product candidates, employee productivity and the conduct of current and future clinical trials. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has affected and may continue to affect the operations of the FDA, EMA, and other health authorities, which could result in delays of reviews and approvals, including with respect to our product candidates.

As evidenced by the postponement of procedures for two patients in our Phase I/II clinical study of AMT-130, the evolving COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the pace of enrollment and procedures in our clinical trials, as well as caused challenges in scheduling follow-up visits and managing other aspects of our clinical trials. We may be affected by similar delays as patients may avoid or may not be able to travel to healthcare facilities and physicians’ offices unless due to a health emergency and clinical trial staff can no longer get to the clinic. Such facilities and offices have been and may continue to be required to focus limited resources on non-clinical trial matters, including treatment of COVID-19 patients, thereby decreasing availability, in whole or in part, for clinical trial services. In addition, employee disruptions and remote working environments related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and federal, state, and local public health measures designed to mitigate the spread of the virus, have impacted and could continue to negatively impact the efficiency and pace with which we work and develop our product candidates and our manufacturing capabilities. Further, while the potential economic impact brought by, and the duration of, the COVID-19 pandemic is difficult to assess or predict, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on global financial markets may reduce our ability to access capital, which could negatively impact our short-term and long-term liquidity. The ultimate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is highly uncertain and subject to change. We do not yet know the full extent of potential delays or impacts on our business, financing, or clinical trial activities or on healthcare systems or the global economy as a whole. However, these negative effects could have a material impact on our liquidity, capital resources, operations, and business and those of the third parties on whom we rely.

Risks Related to the Development of Our Product Candidates

None of our product candidates have been approved for commercial sale and they might never receive regulatory approval or become commercially viable. We have never generated any revenues from product sales and may never be profitable.

All our product candidates are in research or development. We have not generated any revenues from the sale of products or manufacturing of our product for a licensee and do not expect to generate any such revenue before 2022. Our lead product candidates, etranacogene dezaparvovec (also known as AMT-061) and AMT-130, and any of our other potential product candidates will require extensive preclinical and/or clinical testing, manufacture development and regulatory approval prior to commercial use. Our research and development efforts may not be successful. Even if our clinical development efforts result in positive data, our product candidates may not receive regulatory approval or be successfully introduced and marketed at prices that would permit us to operate profitably.

We may encounter substantial delays in and impediments to the progress of our clinical trials or fail to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates.

Clinical and non-clinical development is expensive, time-consuming, and uncertain as to outcome. Our product candidates are in different stages of clinical or preclinical development, and there is a significant risk of failure or delay in each of these programs. For example, on December 21, 2020, our clinical trials of etranacogene dezaparvovec, including our HOPE-B trial, were put on clinical hold by the FDA. The clinical hold was initiated following the submission of a safety report in mid-December 2020 relating to a possibly related serious adverse event associated with a preliminary diagnosis of HCC, a form of liver cancer, in one patient in the HOPE-B trial that was treated with the etranacogene dezaparvovec in October 2019. The clinical hold could be maintained for an extended period of time or indefinitely. We cannot guarantee that any preclinical tests or clinical trials, including our clinical trials of etranacogene dezaparvovec, will be completed as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. A failure of one or more preclinical tests or clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing. Events that may prevent successful or timely completion of clinical development, as well as product candidate approval, include, but are not limited to:

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of our product candidates, we must conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the product candidates in humans. Such trials and regulatory review and approval take many years. It is impossible to predict when or if any of our clinical trials will demonstrate that product candidates are effective or safe in humans.

If the results of our clinical trials are inconclusive, or fail to meet the level of statistical significance required for approval or if there are safety concerns or adverse events associated with our product candidates, we may:

Because of the nature of the gene therapies we are developing, regulators may also require us to demonstrate long-term gene expression, clinical efficacy, and safety, which may require additional or longer clinical trials, and which may not be able to be demonstrated to the regulatory authorities’ standards.

Our ability to recruit patients for our trials is often reliant on third parties, such as clinical trial sites. Clinical trial sites may not have the adequate infrastructure established to handle gene therapy products or may have difficulty finding eligible patients to enroll into a trial.

In addition, we, or any collaborators we may have may not be able to locate and enroll enough eligible patients to participate in these trials as required by the FDA, the EMA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States and the European Union. This may result in our failure to initiate or continue clinical trials for our product candidates or may cause us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether. Because our programs are focused on the treatment of patients with rare or orphan or ultra-orphan diseases, our ability to enroll eligible patients in these trials may be limited or slower than we anticipate considering the small patient populations involved and the specific age range required for treatment eligibility in some indications. In addition, our potential competitors, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions and governmental agencies and public and private research institutions, may seek to develop competing therapies, which would further limit the small patient pool available for our studies. Also, patients may be reluctant to enroll in gene therapy trials where there are other therapeutic alternatives available or that may become available, which may be for various reasons including uncertainty about the safety or effectiveness of a new therapeutic such as a gene therapy and the possibility that treatment with a gene therapy therapeutic could preclude future gene therapy treatments due to the formation of antibodies following and in response to the treatment.

Any inability to successfully initiate or complete preclinical and clinical development could result in additional costs to us or impair our ability to receive marketing approval, to generate revenues from product sales or obtain regulatory and commercialization milestones and royalties. In addition, if we make manufacturing or formulation changes to our product candidates, including changes in the vector or manufacturing process used, we may need to conduct additional studies to bridge our modified product candidates to earlier versions. It is also possible that any such manufacturing of formulation changes may have an adverse impact on the performance of the product candidate. Clinical trial delays could also shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates or allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do, which could impair our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and may materially harm our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Table of Contents

Our progress in early-stage clinical trials may not be indicative of long-term efficacy in late-stage clinical trials, and our progress in trials for one product candidate may not be indicative of progress in trials for other product candidates.

Study designs and results from previous studies are not necessarily predictive of our future clinical study designs or results, and initial, top-line, or interim results may not be confirmed upon full analysis of the complete study data. Our product candidates may fail to show the required level of safety and efficacy in later stages of clinical development despite having successfully advanced through initial clinical studies. Changes to product candidates may also impact their performance in subsequent studies.

By example, our initial clinical trials in hemophilia B were conducted with AMT-060. Following these studies, we made modifications to AMT-060, substituting two nucleotides in the coding sequence for FIX. This modified product candidate is etranacogene dezaparvovec. In 2017, we announced our plans to advance etranacogene dezaparvovec, which includes an AAV5 vector carrying the FIX-Padua transgene, into a pivotal study. While we believe etranacogene dezaparvovec and AMT-060, our product candidate that was previously studied in a Phase I/II study, have been demonstrated to be materially comparable in nonclinical studies and manufacturing quality assessments, it is possible that ongoing or future clinical studies of etranacogene dezaparvovec may show unexpected differences from AMT-060. Should these differences have an unfavorable impact on clinical outcomes, or should they not have their intended effect of increasing the product candidate’s FIX activity, they may adversely impact our ability to achieve regulatory approval or market acceptance of etranacogene dezaparvovec. We may also need to conduct additional or longer-term studies, which may delay regulatory submissions or approvals and which the regulatory authorities may ultimately not accept or approve.

In our Phase I/II clinical study of AMT-060, we screened patients for pre-existing anti-AAV5 antibodies to determine their eligibility for the trial. Three of the ten patients screened for the study tested positive for anti-AAV5 antibodies on reanalysis using a more sensitive antibody assay. Since we did not observe any ill-effects or correlation between the level of anti-AAV5 antibodies and clinical outcomes, patients who have anti-AAV5 antibodies are permitted to enroll in our planned pivotal study of etranacogene dezaparvovec. Since we only have been able to test a limited number of patients and have limited clinical and pre-clinical data, it is possible that ongoing or future clinical studies may not confirm these results, and if so, negatively impact the outcome of our study.

In advance of treating patients in the pivotal study of etranacogene dezaparvovec, we conducted a short study to confirm the dose expected to be used in the pivotal trial. The dose-confirmation study enrolled three patients, who were administered a single dose of 2x10¹³ gc/kg. We have relied on the short-term data from this study, including FIX activity and safety outcomes during the weeks following administration of etranacogene dezaparvovec, to confirm the dose to be used in the pivotal study. Following the results of this study, our Data Monitoring Committee confirmed the dose of 2x10¹³ gc/kg for administration in the pivotal study. Given the limited number of patients and short follow-up period, data from this study may differ materially from the future results of our planned pivotal study of etranacogene dezaparvovec.

A number of companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in later-stage clinical trials even after achieving promising results in early-stage clinical trials. If a larger population of patients does not experience positive results during clinical trials, if these results are not reproducible or if our products show diminishing activity over time, our product candidates may not receive approval from the FDA or EMA. Data obtained from preclinical and clinical activities are subject to varying interpretations, which may delay, limit, or prevent regulatory approval. In addition, we may encounter regulatory delays or rejections because of many factors, including changes in regulatory policy during the period of product development. Failure to confirm favorable results from earlier trials by demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of our products in later-stage clinical trials with larger patient populations could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Additionally, where there are differences in the early-stage and late-stage trials, such as the differences between AMT-060 and AMT-061, regulatory authorities may require additional or longer-term data in late-stage trials, which may delay regulatory submissions or approvals and which the regulatory authorities may ultimately not accept or approve.

Table of Contents

Fast track product, breakthrough therapy, priority review, or RMAT designation by the FDA, or access to the PRIME scheme by the EMA, for our product candidates may not lead to faster development or regulatory review or approval process, and it does not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will receive marketing approval.

We have obtained and may in the future seek one or more of fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, RMAT designation, PRIME scheme access or priority review designation for our product candidates. A fast track product designation is designed to facilitate the clinical development and expedite the review of drugs intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and which demonstrate the potential to address an unmet medical need. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a drug that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, where preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. A RMAT designation is designed to accelerate approval for regenerative advanced therapies. Priority review designation is intended to speed the FDA marketing application review timeframe for drugs that treat a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. PRIME is a scheme provided by the EMA, similar to the FDA’s breakthrough therapy designation, to enhance support for the development of medicines that target an unmet medical need.

For drugs and biologics that have been designated as fast track products, RMAT, or breakthrough therapies, or granted access to the PRIME scheme, interaction and communication between the regulatory agency and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development. Sponsors of fast track products, RMAT products, or breakthrough therapies may also be able to submit marketing applications on a rolling basis, meaning that the FDA may review portions of a marketing application before the sponsor submits the complete application to the FDA, if the sponsor pays the user fee upon submission of the first portion of the marketing application and the FDA approves a schedule for the submission of the remaining sections. For products that receive a priority review designation, the FDA's marketing application review goal is shortened to six months, as opposed to ten months under standard review.

Designation as a fast track product, breakthrough therapy, RMAT, PRIME, or priority review product is within the discretion of the regulatory agency. Accordingly, even if we believe one of our product candidates meets the relevant criteria, the agency may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. In any event, the receipt of such a designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to drugs considered for approval under conventional regulatory procedures and does not assure ultimate marketing approval by the agency. In addition, the FDA may later decide that the products no longer meet the applicable conditions for qualification as either a fast track product, RMAT, or a breakthrough therapy or, for priority review products, decide that the period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

We may not be successful in our efforts to use our gene therapy technology platform to build a pipeline of additional product candidates.

An element of our strategy is to use our gene therapy technology platform to expand our product pipeline and to progress these candidates through preclinical and clinical development ourselves or together with collaborators. Although we currently have a pipeline of programs at various stages of development, we may not be able to identify or develop product candidates that are safe and effective. Even if we are successful in continuing to build our pipeline, the potential product candidates that we identify may not be suitable for clinical development. Research programs to identify new product candidates require substantial technical, financial, and human resources. We or any collaborators may focus our efforts and resources on potential programs or product candidates that ultimately prove to be unsuccessful. If we do not continue to successfully develop and commercialize product candidates based upon our technology, we may face difficulty in obtaining product revenues in future periods, which could result in significant harm to our business, results of operations and financial position and materially adversely affect our share price.

Table of Contents

Our strategy of obtaining rights to key technologies through in-licenses may not be successful.

We seek to expand our product pipeline from time to time in part by in-licensing the rights to key technologies, including those related to gene delivery, genes, and gene cassettes. The future growth of our business will depend in significant part on our ability to in-license or otherwise acquire the rights to additional product candidates or technologies, particularly through our collaborations with academic research institutions. However, we may be unable to in-license or acquire the rights to any such product candidates or technologies from third parties on acceptable terms or at all. The in-licensing and acquisition of these technologies is a competitive area, and many more established companies are also pursuing strategies to license or acquire product candidates or technologies that we may consider attractive. These 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 competitors may be unwilling to license rights to us. Furthermore, we may be unable to identify suitable product candidates or technologies within our areas of focus. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to suitable product candidates or technologies, our business, financial condition, and prospects could suffer.

Negative public opinion and increased regulatory scrutiny of gene therapy and genetic research may damage public perception of our product candidates or adversely affect our ability to conduct our business or obtain marketing approvals for our product candidates.

Public perception may be influenced by claims that gene therapy is unsafe, and gene therapy may not gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. The risk of cancer remains a concern for gene therapy, and we cannot assure that it will not occur in any of our planned or future clinical studies. In addition, there is the potential risk of delayed adverse events following exposure to gene therapy products due to persistent biological activity of the genetic material or other components of products used to carry the genetic material.

A small number of patients have experienced serious adverse events during our clinical trials of either AMT-060 (our first-generation hemophilia B gene therapy) or etranacogene dezaparvovec. Any adverse events in our clinical trials or those conducted by other parties (even if not ultimately attributable to our product candidates), and the resulting publicity, could result in delay, a hold or termination of our clinical trials, increased governmental regulation, unfavorable public perception, failure of the medical community to accept and prescribe gene therapy treatments, 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. If any of these events should occur, it may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Certain of our product candidates may require medical devices for product administration and/or diagnostics, resulting in our product candidates being deemed combination products. This may result in the need to comply with additional regulatory requirements. If we are unable to meet these regulatory requirements, we may be delayed or not be able to obtain product approval.

Certain of our product candidates, such as AMT-130, require medical devices, such as a stereotactic, magnetic resonance imaging guided catheter, for product administration.  Other of our product candidates may also require the use of a companion diagnostic device to confirm the presence of specific genetic or other biomarkers.  This may result in our product candidates being deemed to be combination products, potentially necessitating compliance with the FDA’s investigational device regulations, separate marketing application submissions for the medical device component, a demonstration that our product candidates are safe and effective when used in combination with the medical devices, cross labeling with the medical device, and compliance with certain of the FDA’s device regulations.  If we are not able to comply with the FDA’s device regulations, if we are not able to effectively partner with the applicable medical device manufacturers, if we or any partners are not able to obtain any required FDA clearances or approvals of the applicable medical devices, or if we are not able to demonstrate that our product candidates are safe and efficacious when used with the applicable medical devices, we may be delayed in or may never obtain FDA approval for our product candidates, which would materially harm our business.

Moreover, certain of our delivery modalities, such as direct delivery of product candidates to the brain, may require significant physician ability and skill.  If physicians are not able to effectively deliver our product candidates to the applicable site of action or if delivery modalities are too difficult, we may never be able to obtain approval for our product candidates, may be delayed in obtaining approval, or, following approval, physicians may not adopt our product candidates, any of which may materially harm our business.

​

Table of Contents

Risks Related to Our Manufacturing

Our manufacturing facility is subject to significant government regulations and approvals. If we fail to comply with these regulations or maintain these approvals our business could be materially harmed.

Our manufacturing facility in Lexington is subject to ongoing regulation and periodic inspection by the FDA, EMA, and other regulatory bodies to ensure compliance with current cGMP. Moreover, before approving a BLA for any product candidate, the FDA will inspect our manufacturing facility and processes. Any failure to follow and document our adherence to such cGMP regulations or other regulatory requirements may lead to significant delays in the availability of products for commercial sale or clinical study, may result in the termination of or a hold on a clinical study, or may delay or prevent filing or approval of marketing applications for our products.

Failure to comply with applicable regulations could also result in the FDA, EMA, or other applicable authorities taking various actions, including levying fines and other civil penalties; imposing consent decrees or injunctions; requiring us to suspend or put on hold one or more of our clinical trials; suspending or withdrawing regulatory approvals; delaying or refusing to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications; requiring us to suspend manufacturing activities or product sales, imports or exports; requiring us to communicate with physicians and other customers about concerns related to actual or potential safety, efficacy, and other issues involving our products; mandating or recommending product recalls or seizing products; imposing operating restrictions; and seeking criminal prosecutions, among other outcomes. Poor control of production processes can also lead to the introduction of adventitious agents or other contaminants, or to inadvertent changes in the properties or stability of a product candidate that may not be detectable in final product testing and that could have an adverse effect on clinical studies, or patient safety or efficacy. Moreover, if our manufacturing facility is not able to follow regulatory requirements, we may need to implement costly and time-consuming remedial actions. Any of the foregoing could materially harm our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Moreover, if we are not able to manufacture a sufficient amount of our product candidates for clinical studies or eventual commercialization, our development program and eventual commercial prospects will be harmed.  If we cannot produce an adequate amount of our product candidates in compliance with the applicable regulatory requirements, we may need to contract with a third party to do so, in which case third party manufacturers may not be available or available on favorable terms.  The addition of a new manufacturer may also require FDA approvals, which we may not be able to obtain.

Gene therapies are complex and difficult to manufacture. We could experience capacity, production or technology transfer problems that result in delays in our development or commercialization schedules or otherwise adversely affect our business.

The insect-cell based manufacturing process we use to produce our products and product candidates is highly complex and in the normal course is subject to variation or production difficulties. Issues with any of our manufacturing processes, even minor deviations from the normal process, could result in insufficient yield, product deficiencies or manufacturing failures that result in adverse patient reactions, lot failures, insufficient inventory, product recalls and product liability claims. Additionally, we may not be able to scale up some or all our manufacturing processes, which may result in delays in obtaining regulatory approvals or otherwise adversely affect our ability to manufacture sufficient quantities of our products.

Many factors common to the manufacturing of most biologics and drugs could also cause production interruptions, including raw materials shortages, raw material failures, growth media failures, equipment malfunctions, facility contamination, labor problems, natural disasters, disruption in utility services, terrorist activities, or cases of force majeure and acts of god (including the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic) beyond our control. We also may encounter problems in hiring and retaining the experienced specialized personnel needed to operate our manufacturing process, which could result in delays in our production or difficulties in maintaining compliance with applicable regulatory requirements.

Any problems in our manufacturing processes or facilities could make us a less attractive collaborator for academic research institutions and other parties, which could limit our access to additional attractive development programs, result in delays in our clinical development or marketing schedules and materially harm our business.

Table of Contents

Our use of viruses, chemicals and other hazardous materials requires us to comply with regulatory requirements and exposes us to significant potential liabilities.

Our development and manufacturing processes involve the use of viruses, chemicals, other (potentially) hazardous materials and produce waste products. Accordingly, we are subject to national, federal, state, and local laws and regulations in the United States and the Netherlands governing the use, manufacture, distribution, storage, handling, treatment, and disposal of these materials. In addition to ensuring the safe handling of these materials, applicable requirements require increased safeguards and security measures for many of these agents, including controlling access and screening of entities and personnel who have access to them, and establishing a comprehensive national database of registered entities. In the event of an accident or failure to comply with environmental, occupational health and safety and export control laws and regulations, we could be held liable for damages that result, and any such liability could exceed our assets and resources, and could result in material harm to our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Our resources might be adversely affected if we are unable to validate our manufacturing processes or develop new processes to meet our product supply needs and obligations.

The manufacture of our AAV gene therapies, including etranacogene dezaparvovec, is complex and requires significant expertise.  Even with the relevant experience and expertise, manufacturers of gene therapy products often encounter difficulties in production, particularly in scaling out and validating initial production, and ensuring that the product meets required specifications. These problems include difficulties with production costs and yields, quality control, including stability and potency of the product, quality assurance testing, operator error, shortages of qualified personnel, as well as compliance with strictly enforced federal, state and foreign regulations.  In the past, we have manufactured certain batches of etranacogene dezaparvovec, and other product candidates, intended for nonclinical, clinical and process validation purposes that have not met all of our pre-specified quality parameters.  To meet our expected future production needs and our regulatory filing timelines for etranacogene dezaparvovec, as well as other gene therapy product candidates, we will need to complete the validation of our existing manufacturing processes as well as to develop larger scale manufacturing processes. If we are unable to consistently manufacture etranacogene dezaparvovec, or other gene therapy product candidates, in accordance with our pre-specified quality parameters and applicable regulatory standards, it could adversely impact our ability to validate our manufacturing processes, to meet our production needs, to file our BLA or other regulatory submissions, to develop our other proprietary programs, to conserve our cash, or to receive financial payments pursuant to our agreements with third parties, including with CSL Behring in return for supplying etranacogene dezaparvovec following regulatory approval.

Risks Related to Regulatory Approval of Our Products

We cannot predict when or if we will obtain marketing approval to commercialize a product candidate.

The development and commercialization of our product candidates, including their design, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, purity, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale, and distribution, are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory agencies in the United States, the EMA, and other regulatory agencies of the member states of the European Union, and similar regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. Failure to obtain marketing approval for a product candidate in a specific jurisdiction will prevent us from commercializing the product candidate in that jurisdiction.

The process of obtaining marketing approval for our product candidates in the United States, the European Union, and other countries is expensive and may take many years, if approval is obtained at all. Changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or changes in regulatory review for each submitted product application, may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. Regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application, may decide that our data are insufficient for approval, may require additional preclinical, clinical, or other studies and may not complete their review in a timely manner. Further, any marketing approval we ultimately obtain may be for only limited indications or be subject to stringent labeling or other restrictions or post-approval commitments that render the approved product not commercially viable.

If we experience delays in obtaining marketing approval for any of our product candidates in the United States, the European Union, or other countries, the commercial prospects of our other product candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate revenues will be materially impaired.

Table of Contents

The risks associated with the marketing approval process are heightened by the status of our products as gene therapies.

We believe that all our current product candidates will be viewed as gene therapy products by the applicable regulatory authorities. While there are a number of gene therapy product candidates under development, in the United States, the FDA has only approved a limited number of gene therapy products, to date. Accordingly, regulators, like the FDA, may have limited experience with the review and approval of marketing applications for gene therapy products.

Both the FDA and the EMA have demonstrated caution in their regulation of gene therapy treatments, and ethical and legal concerns about gene therapy and genetic testing may result in additional regulations or restrictions on the development and commercialization of our product candidates that are difficult to predict. The FDA and the EMA have issued various guidance documents pertaining to gene therapy products, with which we likely must comply to gain regulatory approval of any of our product candidates in the United States or European Union, respectively. The close regulatory scrutiny of gene therapy products may result in delays and increased costs and may ultimately lead to the failure to obtain approval for any gene therapy product.

Regulatory requirements affecting gene therapy have changed frequently and continue to evolve, and agencies at both the U.S. federal and state level, as well as congressional committees and foreign governments, have sometimes expressed interest in further regulating biotechnology. In the United States, there have been a number of recent changes relating to gene therapy development. By example, FDA issued a number of new guidance documents on human gene therapy development, one of which was specific to human gene therapy for hemophilia and another of which was specific to rare diseases. Moreover, the European Commission conducted a public consultation in early 2013 on the application of EU legislation that governs advanced therapy medicinal products, including gene therapy products, which could result in changes in the data we need to submit to the EMA for our product candidates to gain regulatory approval or change the requirements for tracking, handling and distribution of the products which may be associated with increased costs. In addition, divergent scientific opinions among the various bodies involved in the review process may result in delays, require additional resources, and ultimately result in rejection. The FDA, EMA, and other regulatory authorities will likely continue to revise and further update their approaches to gene therapies in the coming years. These regulatory agencies, committees and advisory groups and the new regulations and guidelines they promulgate may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional studies, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of our product candidates or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions. Delay or failure to obtain, or unexpected costs in obtaining, the regulatory approval necessary to bring a potential product to market could decrease our ability to generate sufficient product revenues to maintain our business.

Table of Contents

Our failure to obtain or maintain orphan product exclusivity for any of our product candidates for which we seek this status could limit our commercial opportunity, and if our competitors are able to obtain orphan product exclusivity before we do, we may not be able to obtain approval for our competing products for a significant period.

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States and the European Union, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. While certain of our product candidates have received orphan drug designation, there is no guarantee that we will be able to receive such designations in the future. The FDA may grant orphan designation to multiple sponsors for the same compound or active molecule and for the same indication. If another sponsor receives FDA approval for such product before we do, we would be prevented from launching our product in the United States for the orphan indication for a period of at least seven years unless we can demonstrate clinical superiority.

Moreover, while orphan drug designation neither shortens the development or regulatory review time, nor gives the product candidate advantages in the regulatory review or approval process, generally, if a product with an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first marketing approval for the relevant indication, the product is entitled to a period of market exclusivity, which precludes the FDA or the EMA from approving another marketing application for the same drug for the same indication for that period. The FDA and the EMA, however, may subsequently approve a similar drug or same drug, in the case of the United States, for the same indication during the first product's market exclusivity period if the FDA or the EMA concludes that the later drug is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer or more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. Orphan exclusivity in the United States also does not prevent the FDA from approving another product that is considered to be the same as our product candidates for a different indication or a different product for the same orphan indication.  If another product that is the same as ours is approved for a different indication, it is possible that third-party payors will reimburse for products off-label even if not indicated for the orphan condition.

Orphan drug exclusivity may be lost if the FDA or the EMA determines that the request for designation was materially defective, or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the drug to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition or if the incidence and prevalence of patients who are eligible to receive the drug in these markets materially increase. The inability to obtain or failure to maintain adequate product exclusivity for our product candidates could have a material adverse effect on our business prospects, results of operations and financial condition.

Table of Contents

Additionally, regulatory criteria with respect to orphan products is evolving, especially in the area of gene therapy.  By example, in the United States, whether two gene therapies are considered to be the same for the purpose of determining clinical superiority is subject to change, and depends on a number of factors, including the expressed transgene, the vector, and other product or product candidate features. Accordingly, whether any of our product candidates will be deemed to be the same as another product or product candidate is uncertain.

As appropriate, we intend to seek all available periods of regulatory exclusivity for our product candidates. However, there is no guarantee that we will be granted these periods of regulatory exclusivity or that we will be able to maintain these periods of exclusivity.

The FDA grants product sponsors certain periods of regulatory exclusivity, during which the agency may not approve, and in certain instances, may not accept, certain marketing applications for competing drugs. For example, biologic product sponsors may be eligible for twelve years of exclusivity from the date of approval, seven years of exclusivity for drugs that are designated to be orphan drugs, and/or a six-month period of exclusivity added to any existing exclusivity period for the submission of FDA requested pediatric data. While we intend to apply for all periods of market exclusivity that we may be eligible for, there is no guarantee that we will be granted any such periods of market exclusivity. By example, regulatory authorities may determine that our product candidates are not eligible for periods of regulatory exclusivity for various reasons, including a determination by the FDA that a BLA approval does not constitute a first licensure of the product. Additionally, under certain circumstances, the FDA may revoke the period of market exclusivity. Thus, there is no guarantee that we will be able to maintain a period of market exclusivity, even if granted. In the case of orphan designation, other benefits, such as tax credits and exemption from user fees may be available. If we are not able to obtain or maintain orphan drug designation or any period of market exclusivity to which we may be entitled, we could be materially harmed, as we will potentially be subject to greater market competition and may lose the benefits associated with programs. It is also possible that periods of exclusivity will not adequately protect our product candidates from competition. For instance, even if we receive twelve years of exclusivity from the FDA, other applicants will still be able to submit and receive approvals for versions of our product candidates through a full BLA.

If we do not obtain or maintain periods of market exclusivity, we may face competition sooner than otherwise anticipated.  For instance, in the United States, this could mean that a competing biosimilar product may be able to submit an application to the FDA and obtain approval. This may require that we undertake costly and time-consuming patent litigation, to the extent available, or defend actions brought by the biosimilar applicant for declaratory judgement. If a biosimilar product does enter the market, it is possible that it could be substituted for one of our product candidates, especially if it is available at a lower price.

It is also possible that, at the time we obtain approval of our product candidates, regulatory laws and policies around exclusivities may have changed. For instance, there have been efforts to decrease the United States period of exclusivity to a shorter timeframe. Future proposed budgets, international trade agreements and other arrangements or proposals may affect periods of exclusivity.

Risks Related to Commercialization

If we are unable to successfully commercialize our product candidates or experience significant delays in doing so, our business could be materially harmed.

Our ability to generate product revenues will depend on the successful development and eventual commercialization of our product candidates. The success of our product candidates will depend on many factors, including:

Table of Contents

By example, even if our product candidates are approved, they may be subject to limitations that make commercialization difficult. There may be limitations on the indicated uses and populations for which the products may be marketed. They may also be subject to other conditions of approval, may contain significant safety warnings, including boxed warnings, contraindications, and precautions, may not be approved with label statements necessary or desirable for successful commercialization, or may contain requirements for costly post-market testing and surveillance, or other requirements, including the submission of a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, to monitor the safety or efficacy of the products. Failure to achieve or implement any of the above elements could result in significant delays or an inability to successfully commercialize our product candidates, which could materially harm our business.

The affected populations for our gene therapies may be smaller than we or third parties currently project, which may affect the size of our addressable markets.

Our projections of the number of people who have the diseases we are seeking to treat, as well as the subset of people with these diseases who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our therapies, are estimates based on our knowledge and understanding of these diseases. The total addressable market opportunities for these therapies will ultimately depend upon many factors, including the diagnosis and treatment criteria included in the final label, if approved for sale in specified indications, acceptance by the medical community, patient consent, patient access and product pricing and reimbursement.

Prevalence estimates are frequently based on information and assumptions that are not exact and may not be appropriate, and the methodology is forward-looking and speculative. The use of such data involves risks and uncertainties and is subject to change based on various factors. Our estimates may prove to be incorrect and new studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of the diseases we seek to address. The number of patients with the diseases we are targeting may turn out to be lower than expected or may not be otherwise amenable to treatment with our products, reimbursement may not be sufficient to sustain a viable business for all sub populations being studied, or new patients may become increasingly difficult to identify or access, any of which could adversely affect our results of operations and our business.

The addressable markets for AAV-based gene therapies may be impacted by the prevalence of neutralizing antibodies to the capsids, which are an integral component of our gene therapy constructs. Patients that have pre-existing antibodies to a particular capsid may not be eligible for administration of a gene therapy that includes this particular capsid. For example, etranacogene dezaparvovec, our gene therapy candidate for hemophilia B patients, incorporates an AAV5 capsid. In our Phase I/II clinical study of AMT-060, we screened patients for pre-existing anti-AAV5 antibodies to determine their eligibility for the trial. Three of the ten patients screened for the study tested positive for anti-AAV5 antibodies on reanalysis. Although we did not observe any ill-effects or correlation between the level of anti-AAV5 antibodies and clinical outcomes in these three patients, suggesting that patients who have anti-AAV5 antibodies may still be eligible for AAV5-based gene therapies, since we only have been able to test a limited number of patients and have limited clinical and pre-clinical data, we do not know if future clinical studies will confirm these results. This may limit the addressable market for etranacogene dezaparvovec and any future revenues derived from the sale of the product, if approved.

Table of Contents

Any approved gene therapy we seek to offer may fail to achieve the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third party payers and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.

Doctors may be reluctant to accept a gene therapy as a treatment option or, where available, choose to continue to rely on existing treatments. The degree of market acceptance of any of our product candidates that receive marketing approval in the future will depend on many factors, including:

A failure to gain market acceptance for any of the above reasons, or any reasons at all, by a gene therapy for which we receive regulatory approval would likely hinder our ability to recapture our substantial investments in that and other gene therapies and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operation.

​

If we are unable to expand our commercialization capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to market and sell any of our product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval, we may be unable to generate any product revenue.

To successfully commercialize any products that may result from our development programs, we need to continue to expand our commercialization capabilities, either on our own or with others. The development of our own market development effort is, and will continue to be, expensive and time-consuming and could delay any product launch. Moreover, we cannot be certain that we will be able to successfully develop this capability.

We may enter into collaborations regarding our other product candidates with other entities to utilize their established marketing and distribution capabilities, but we may be unable to enter into such agreements on favorable terms, if at all. If any current or future collaborators do not commit sufficient resources to commercialize our products, or we are unable to develop the necessary capabilities on our own, we will be unable to generate sufficient product revenue to sustain our business. We compete with many companies that currently have extensive, experienced and well-funded medical affairs, marketing, and sales operations to recruit, hire, train and retain marketing and sales personnel. We also may face competition in any search for third parties to assist us with the sales and marketing efforts of our product candidates. Without an internal team or the support of a third party to perform marketing and sales functions, we may be unable to compete successfully against these more established companies.

If the market opportunities for our product candidates are smaller than we believe they are, our product revenues may be adversely affected, and our business may suffer.

We focus our research and product development on treatments for severe genetic and orphan diseases. Our understanding of both the number of people who have these diseases, as well as the subset of people with these diseases who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates, are based on estimates. These estimates may prove to be incorrect and new studies may reduce the estimated incidence or prevalence of these diseases. The number of patients in the United States, the EU and elsewhere may turn out to be lower than expected, may not be otherwise amenable to treatment with our products or patients may become increasingly difficult to identify and access, any of which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Table of Contents

Further, there are several factors that could contribute to making the actual number of patients who receive other potential products less than the potentially addressable market. These include the lack of widespread availability of, and limited reimbursement for, new therapies in many underdeveloped markets. Further, the severity of the progression of a disease up to the time of treatment, especially in certain degenerative conditions, could diminish the therapeutic benefit conferred by a gene therapy. Lastly, certain patients’ immune systems might prohibit the successful delivery of certain gene therapy products to the target tissue, thereby limiting the treatment outcomes.

Our gene therapy approach utilizes vectors derived from viruses, which may be perceived as unsafe or may result in unforeseen adverse events. Negative public opinion and increased regulatory scrutiny of gene therapy may damage public perception of the safety of our product and product candidates and adversely affect our ability to conduct our business or obtain regulatory approvals for our product candidates.

Gene therapy remains a novel technology. Public perception may be influenced by claims that gene therapy is unsafe, and gene therapy may not gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. In particular, our success will depend upon physicians who specialize in the treatment of genetic diseases targeted by our product and product candidates, if approved, prescribing treatments that involve the use of our product and product candidates, if approved, in lieu of, or in addition to, existing treatments with which they are familiar and for which greater clinical data may be available. More restrictive government regulations or negative public opinion would have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects and may delay or impair the development and commercialization of our product candidates or demand for any products we may develop. For example, earlier gene therapy trials led to several well-publicized adverse events, including cases of leukemia and death seen in other trials using other vectors. Serious adverse events in our clinical trials, or other clinical trials involving gene therapy products or our competitors’ products, even if not ultimately attributable to the relevant product candidates, and the resulting publicity, could result in increased government 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 products for which we obtain marketing approval.

Ethical, legal, and social issues may reduce demand for any gene therapy products for which we obtain marketing approval.

Prior to receiving certain gene therapies, patients may be required to undergo genetic testing. Genetic testing has raised concerns regarding the appropriate utilization and the confidentiality of information provided by genetic testing. Genetic tests for assessing a person’s likelihood of developing a chronic disease have focused public attention on the need to protect the privacy of genetic information. For example, concerns have been expressed that insurance carriers and employers may use these tests to discriminate on the basis of genetic information, resulting in barriers to the acceptance of genetic tests by consumers. This could lead to governmental authorities restricting genetic testing or calling for limits on or regulating the use of genetic testing, particularly for diseases for which there is no known cure. Any of these scenarios could decrease demand for any products for which we obtain marketing approval.

If we obtain approval to commercialize any of our product candidates outside of the United States, a variety of risks associated with international operations could materially adversely affect our business.

We expect that we will be subject to additional risks in commercializing any of our product candidates outside the United States, including:

Table of Contents

We face substantial competition, and others may discover, develop, or commercialize competing products before or more successfully than we do.

The development and commercialization of new biotechnology and biopharmaceutical products, including gene therapies, is highly competitive. We may face intense competition with respect to our product candidates, as well as with respect to any product candidates that we may seek to develop or commercialize in the future, from large and specialty pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies worldwide, who currently market and sell products or are pursuing the development of products for the treatment of many of the disease indications for which we are developing our product candidates. Potential competitors also include academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection, and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing, and commercialization. In recent years, there has been a significant increase in commercial and scientific interest and financial investment in gene therapy as a therapeutic approach, which has intensified the competition in this area.

We are aware of numerous companies focused on developing gene therapies in various indications, including Applied Genetic Technologies Corp., Abbvie, Abeona Therapeutics, Adverum Biotechnologies, Ally Therapeutics, Apic Bio, Asklepios BioPharmaceutical, Astellas, AVROBIO, Bayer, Biogen, BioMarin, bluebird bio, CRISPR Therapeutics, Editas Medicine, Expression Therapeutics, Fate, Freeline Therapeutics, Generation Bio, Genethon, GlaxoSmithKline, Homology Medicines, Intellia Therapeutics, Johnson & Johnson, Krystal Biotech, Lexeo Therapeutics, LogicBio Therapeutics, Lysogene, MeiraGTx, Milo Biotechnology, Mustang Bio, Novartis, Orchard Therapeutics, Oxford Biomedica, Passage Bio, Pfizer, REGENXBIO, Renova Therapeutics, Roche, Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Sangamo Therapeutics, Sanofi, Selecta Biosciences, Sarepta Therapeutics, Sio Therapeutics, Solid Biosciences, SwanBio, Takeda, Taysha Gene Therapies, Ultragenyx, Vivet Therapeutics, and Voyager Therapeutics, as well as several companies addressing other methods for modifying genes and regulating gene expression. We may also face competition with respect to the treatment of some of the diseases that we are seeking to target with our gene therapies from protein, nucleic acid, antisense, RNAi and other pharmaceuticals under development or commercialized at pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies such as Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, BioMarin, CSL Behring, Dicerna Pharmaceuticals, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Translate Bio, Roche, Sanofi, Sobi, Takeda, WaVe Life Sciences, and numerous other pharmaceutical and biotechnology firms.

Our commercial opportunity 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 or are less expensive than the products that we develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA, EMA, or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we do, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. A competitor approval may also prevent us from entering the market if the competitor receives any regulatory exclusivities that block our product candidates. Because we expect that gene therapy patients may generally require only a single administration, we believe that the first gene therapy product to enter the market for a particular indication will likely enjoy a significant commercial advantage and may also obtain market exclusivity under applicable orphan drug regimes.

Many of the companies with which we are competing or may compete in the future have significantly greater financial resources and expertise than we do in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals, and marketing approved products. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller and other early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These third parties compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

Table of Contents

If we do not achieve our projected development goals in the timeframes we announce and expect, the commercialization of our product candidates may be delayed and, as a result, our stock price may decline.

For planning purposes, we estimate the timing of the accomplishment of various scientific, clinical, regulatory, and other product development goals, or development milestones. These development milestones may include the commencement or completion of scientific studies, clinical trials, the submission of regulatory filings, and approval for commercial sale. From time to time, we publicly announce the expected timing of some of these milestones. All these milestones are based on a variety of assumptions. The actual timing of these milestones can vary dramatically compared to our estimates, in many cases for reasons beyond our control. If we do not meet these milestones, including those that are publicly announced, the commercialization of our products may be delayed and, as a result, our stock price may decline.

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties

We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties to conduct, supervise, and monitor our preclinical studies and clinical trials, and those third parties may not perform satisfactorily, including failing to meet deadlines for the completion of such trials or failing to comply with regulatory requirements.

We rely on third parties, study sites, and others to conduct, supervise, and monitor our preclinical and clinical trials for our product candidates and do not currently plan to independently conduct clinical or preclinical trials of any other potential product candidates. We expect to continue to rely on third parties, such as CROs, clinical data management organizations, medical and scientific institutions, and clinical and preclinical investigators, to conduct our preclinical studies and clinical trials.

While we have agreements governing the activities of such third parties, we have limited influence and control over their actual performance and activities. For instance, our third-party service providers are not our employees, and except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such third parties we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our ongoing clinical, non-clinical, and preclinical programs. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or conduct our preclinical studies or clinical trials in accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated protocols, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our protocols, regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our trials may be repeated, extended, delayed, or terminated, we may not be able to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, marketing approvals for our product candidates, we may not be able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, successfully commercialize our product candidates, or we or they may be subject to regulatory enforcement actions. As a result, our results of operations and the commercial prospects for our product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenues could be delayed. To the extent we are unable to successfully identify and manage the performance of third-party service providers in the future, our business may be materially and adversely affected. Our third-party service providers may also have relationships with other entities, some of which may be our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting trials or other therapeutic development activities that could harm our competitive position.

Our reliance on these third-parties for development activities will reduce our control over these activities. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our studies is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory, and scientific standards, and our reliance on third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. For example, we will remain responsible for ensuring that each of our trials is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the trial. We must also ensure that our preclinical trials are conducted in accordance with GLPs, as appropriate. Moreover, the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities require us to comply with GCPs for conducting, recording, and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity, and confidentiality of trial participants are protected. Regulatory authorities enforce these requirements through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, clinical and preclinical investigators, and trial sites. If we or any of our third-party service providers fail to comply with applicable GCPs or other regulatory requirements, we or they may be subject to enforcement or other legal actions, the data generated in our trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional studies.

In addition, we will be required to report certain financial interests of our third-party investigators if these relationships exceed certain financial thresholds or meet other criteria. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may question the integrity of the data from those clinical trials conducted by investigators who may have conflicts of interest.

Table of Contents

We cannot assure that upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our trials complies with the applicable regulatory requirements. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with product candidates that were produced under GMP conditions. Failure to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process. We also are required to register certain clinical trials and post the results of certain completed clinical trials on a government-sponsored database, ClinicalTrials.gov, within specified timeframes. Failure to do so can result in enforcement actions and adverse publicity.

Agreements with third parties conducting or otherwise assisting with our clinical or preclinical studies might terminate for a variety of reasons, including a failure to perform by the third parties. If any of our relationships with these third parties terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative providers or to do so on commercially reasonable terms. Switching or adding additional third parties involves additional cost and requires management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new third party commences work. As a result, if we need to enter into alternative arrangements, it could delay our product development activities and adversely affect our business. Though we carefully manage our relationships with our third parties, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and prospects, and results of operations.

We also rely on other third parties to store and distribute our products for the clinical and preclinical trials that we conduct. Any performance failure on the part of our distributors could delay development, marketing approval, or commercialization of our product candidates, producing additional losses and depriving us of potential product revenue.

We rely on third parties for important aspects of our development programs. If these parties do not perform successfully or if we are unable to enter into or maintain key collaboration or other contractual arrangements, our business could be adversely affected.

We have in the past entered into, and expect in the future to enter into, collaborations with other companies and academic research institutions with respect to important elements of our development programs.

Any collaboration may pose several risks, including the following:

Table of Contents

If any collaboration does not result in the successful development and commercialization of products or if a collaborator were to terminate an agreement with us, we may not receive future research funding or milestone or royalty payments under that collaboration, and we may lose access to important technologies and capabilities of the collaboration. All the risks relating to product development, regulatory approval and commercialization described herein also apply to the activities of any development collaborators.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

We rely on licenses of intellectual property from third parties, and such licenses may not provide adequate rights or may not be available in the future on commercially reasonable terms or at all, and our licensors may be unable to obtain and maintain patent protection for the technology or products that we license from them.

We currently are heavily reliant upon licenses of proprietary technology from third parties that is important or necessary to the development of our technology and products, including technology related to our manufacturing process, our vector platform, our gene cassettes, and the therapeutic genes of interest we are using. These and other licenses may not provide adequate rights to use such technology in all relevant fields of use. Licenses to additional third-party technology that may be required for our development programs may not be available in the future or may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

In some circumstances, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, covering technology that we license from third parties. In addition, some of our agreements with our licensors require us to obtain consent from the licensor before we can enforce patent rights, and our licensor may withhold such consent or may not provide it on a timely basis. Therefore, we cannot be certain that these patents and applications will be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. In addition, if third parties who license patents to us fail to maintain such patents, or lose rights to those patents, the rights we have licensed may be reduced or eliminated.

Our intellectual property licenses with third parties may be subject to disagreements over contract interpretation, which could narrow the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology or increase our financial or other obligations to our licensors.

The agreements under which we license intellectual property or technology from third parties are complex, and certain provisions in such agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology, or increase what we believe to be our financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

If we fail to comply with our obligations in our intellectual property licenses with third parties, we could lose rights that are important to our business.

Our licensing arrangements with third parties may impose diligence, development and commercialization timelines, milestone payment, royalty, insurance, and other obligations on us. If we fail to comply with these obligations, our counterparties may have the right to terminate these agreements either in part or in whole, in which case we might not be able to develop, manufacture or market any product that is covered by these agreements or may face other penalties under the agreements. Such an occurrence could materially adversely affect the value of the product candidate being developed under any such agreement. Termination of these agreements or reduction or elimination of our rights under these agreements may result in our having to negotiate new or amended agreements with less favorable terms or cause us to lose our rights under these agreements, including our rights to important intellectual property or technology.

Table of Contents

If we are unable to obtain and maintain patent protection for our technology and products, or if the scope of the patent protection is not sufficiently broad, our ability to successfully commercialize our products may be impaired.

We rely, in part, upon a combination of forms of intellectual property, including in-licensed and owned patents to protect our intellectual property. Our success depends in a large part on our ability to obtain and maintain this protection in the United States, the European Union, and other countries, in part by filing patent applications related to our novel technologies and product candidates. Our patents may not provide us with any meaningful commercial protection, prevent competitors from competing with us or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. For example, patents we own currently are and may become subject to future patent opposition or similar proceedings, which may result in loss of scope of some claims or the entire patent. Our competitors may be able to circumvent our owned or licensed patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner.

Successful challenges to our patents may result in loss of exclusivity or freedom to operate or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and products.

The patent prosecution process is expensive, time-consuming, and uncertain, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Additionally, given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. In addition, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. For example, EU patent law with respect to the patentability of methods of treatment of the human body is more limited than U.S. law. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after their priority date, or in some cases at all. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether we were the first to make the inventions or that we were the first to file for patent protection of the inventions claimed in our owned or licensed patents or pending patent applications. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability, and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued that protect our technology or products, in whole or in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the European Union, the United States or other countries may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection. Our inability to obtain and maintain appropriate patent protection for any one of our products could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or other intellectual property, or third parties may assert their intellectual property rights against us, which could be expensive, time consuming and unsuccessful.

Competitors may infringe our owned or licensed patents or other intellectual property. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time consuming. An adverse result in any litigation proceeding could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated, maintained in more narrowly amended form or interpreted narrowly.

Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses, increase our operating losses, reduce available resources, and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments, which could have an adverse effect on the price of our ordinary shares.

Table of Contents

Third parties may initiate legal proceedings alleging that we are infringing their intellectual property rights, the outcome of which would be uncertain and could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business. For example, outside of the United States two of the patents we own are subject to patent opposition. If these or future oppositions are successful or if we are found to otherwise infringe a third party's intellectual property rights, we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to continue developing and marketing our products and technology. We may not be able to obtain the required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we could obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. We could be forced, including by court order, to cease commercializing the infringing technology or product or otherwise to cease using the relevant intellectual property. In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys' fees if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing our product candidates or force us to cease or materially modify some of our business operations, which could materially harm our business. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar negative impact on our business.

For example, we are aware of patents owned by third parties that relate to some aspects of our programs that are still in development. In some cases, because we have not determined the final methods of manufacture, the method of administration or the therapeutic compositions for these programs, we cannot determine whether rights under such third-party patents will be needed. In addition, in some cases, we believe that the claims of these patents are invalid or not infringed or will expire before commercialization. However, if such patents are needed and found to be valid and infringed, we could be required to obtain licenses, which might not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or to cease or delay commercializing certain product candidates, or to change our programs to avoid infringement.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our proprietary information and know-how, the value of our technology and products could be adversely affected.

In addition to seeking patent protection, we also rely on other proprietary rights, including protection of trade secrets, know-how and confidential and proprietary information. To maintain the confidentiality of our trade secrets and proprietary information, we enter into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, collaborators and other third parties who have access to our trade secrets. Our agreements with employees also provide that any inventions conceived by the individual while rendering services to us will be our exclusive property. However, we may not obtain these agreements in all circumstances, and individuals with whom we have these agreements may not comply with their terms. The assignment of intellectual property rights may not be self-executing, or the assignment agreements may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims that they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property. In addition, in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure of our trade secrets or proprietary information, these agreements, even if obtained, may not provide meaningful protection, particularly for our trade secrets or other confidential information. To the extent that our employees, consultants, or contractors use technology or know-how owned by third parties in their work for us, disputes may arise between us and those third parties as to the rights in related inventions.

Adequate remedies may not exist in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure of our confidential information including a breach of our confidentiality agreements. 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 in and outside of the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. 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 from using that technology or information to compete with us. The disclosure of our trade secrets or the independent development of our trade secrets by a competitor or other third party would impair our competitive position and may materially harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects.

Table of Contents

Our reliance on third parties may require us to share our trade secrets, which could increase the possibility that a competitor will discover them or that our trade secrets will be misappropriated or disclosed.

Because we collaborate from time to time with various organizations and academic research institutions on the advancement of our gene therapy platform, we must, at times, share trade secrets with them. We seek to protect our proprietary technology in part by entering into confidentiality agreements and, if applicable, materials transfer agreements, collaborative research agreements, consulting agreements or other similar agreements with our collaborators, advisors, and consultants prior to beginning research or disclosing proprietary information. These agreements typically limit the rights of the third parties to use or disclose our confidential information, such as trade secrets. Despite the contractual provisions employed when working with third parties, the need to share trade secrets and other confidential information increases the risk that such trade secrets become known by our competitors, are inadvertently incorporated into the technology of others, or are disclosed or used in violation of these agreements. Given that our proprietary position is based, in part, on our know-how and trade secrets, a competitor's discovery of our trade secrets or other unauthorized use or disclosure would impair our competitive position and may have a material adverse effect on our business.

In addition, these agreements typically restrict the ability of our collaborators, advisors, and consultants to publish data potentially relating to our trade secrets. Our academic collaborators typically have rights to publish data, if we are notified in advance and may delay publication for a specified time to secure our intellectual property rights arising from the collaboration. In other cases, publication rights are controlled exclusively by us, although in some cases we may share these rights with other parties. We also conduct joint research and development programs that may require us to share trade secrets under the terms of our research and development partnerships or similar agreements.

Some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent them, or those with whom they communicate, from using that technology or information to compete with us.

Risks Related to Pricing and Reimbursement

We face uncertainty related to insurance coverage of, and pricing and reimbursement for product candidates for which we may receive marketing approval.

We anticipate that the cost of treatment using our product candidates will be significant. We expect that most patients and their families will not be capable of paying for our products themselves. There will be no commercially viable market for our product candidates without reimbursement from third party payers, such as government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. Even if there is a commercially viable market, if the level of third-party reimbursement is below our expectations, most patients may not be able to afford treatment with our products and our revenues and gross margins will be adversely affected, and our business will be harmed.

Government authorities and other third-party payers, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide for which medications they will pay and, subsequently, establish reimbursement levels. Reimbursement systems vary significantly by country and by region, and reimbursement approvals must be obtained on a country-by-country basis. Government authorities and third-party payers have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications and procedures and negotiating or requiring payment of manufacturer rebates. Increasingly, third party payers require drug companies to provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices, are exerting influence on decisions regarding the use of particular treatments and are limiting covered indications. Additionally, in the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, pending or potential legislative and regulatory changes regarding the healthcare system and insurance coverage could result in more rigorous coverage criteria and downward pressure on drug prices, and may affect our ability to profitably sell any products for which we obtain marketing approval. For example, on November 27, 2020, CMS issued an interim final rule implementing a Most Favored Nation payment model under which reimbursement for certain Medicare Part B drugs and biologicals will be based on a price that reflects the lowest per capita GDP-adjusted price of any non-U.S. member country of the OECD with a GDP per capita that is at least sixty percent of the U.S. GDP per capita.

Table of Contents

The pricing review period and pricing negotiations for new medicines take considerable time and have uncertain results. Pricing review and negotiation usually begins only after the receipt of regulatory marketing approval, and some authorities require approval of the sale price of a product before it can be marketed. In some markets, particularly the countries of the European Union, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing direct governmental control and to drug reimbursement programs even after initial approval is granted and price reductions may be imposed. Prices of medical products may also be subject to varying price control mechanisms or limitations as part of national health systems if products are considered not cost-effective or where a drug company's profits are deemed excessive. In addition, pricing and reimbursement decisions in certain countries can lead to mandatory price reductions or additional reimbursement restrictions in other countries. Because of these restrictions, any product candidates for which we may obtain marketing approval may be subject to price regulations that delay or prohibit our or our partners' commercial launch of the product in a particular jurisdiction. In addition, we or any collaborator may elect to reduce the price of our products to increase the likelihood of obtaining reimbursement approvals. If countries impose prices, which are not sufficient to allow us or any collaborator to generate a profit, we or any collaborator may refuse to launch the product in such countries or withdraw the product from the market. If pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, or if the price decreases, our business could be harmed, possibly materially. If we fail to obtain and sustain an adequate level of coverage and reimbursement for our products by third party payers, our ability to market and sell our products could be adversely affected and our business could be harmed.

Due to the generally limited addressable market for our target orphan indications and the potential for our therapies to offer therapeutic benefit in a single administration, we face uncertainty related to pricing and reimbursement for these product candidates.

The relatively small market size for orphan indications and the potential for long-term therapeutic benefit from a single administration present challenges to pricing review and negotiation of our product candidates for which we may obtain marketing authorization. Most of our product candidates target rare diseases with relatively small patient populations. If we are unable to obtain adequate levels of reimbursement relative to these small markets, our ability to support our development and commercial infrastructure and to successfully market and sell our product candidates for which we may obtain marketing approval could be adversely affected.

We also anticipate that many or all our gene therapy product candidates may provide long-term, and potentially curative benefit, with a single administration. This is a different paradigm than that of other pharmaceutical therapies, which often require an extended course of treatment or frequent administration. As a result, governments and other payers may be reluctant to provide the significant level of reimbursement that we seek at the time of administration of our gene therapies or may seek to tie reimbursement to clinical evidence of continuing therapeutic benefit over time. Additionally, there may be situations in which our product candidates will need to be administered more than once, which may further complicate the pricing and reimbursement for these treatments. In addition, considering the anticipated cost of these therapies, governments and other payers may be particularly restrictive in making coverage decisions. These factors could limit our commercial success and materially harm our business.

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital

We have incurred significant losses to date, expect to incur losses over the next several years and may never achieve or maintain profitability.

We had a net loss of $125.0 million in the year ended December 31, 2020, $124.2 million in 2019 and $83.3 million in 2018. As of December 31, 2020, we had an accumulated deficit of $784.7 million. To date, we have financed our operations primarily through the sale of equity securities and convertible debt, venture loans, upfront payments from our collaboration partners and, to a lesser extent, subsidies and grants from governmental agencies and fees for services. We have devoted substantially all our financial resources and efforts to research and development, including preclinical studies and clinical trials. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and losses over the next several years, and our net losses may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year. Our losses will be materially impacted by the amount of license revenue that we will recognize in accordance with ASC 606 in the event of the closing of the transactions contemplated by the CSL Behring Agreement.

We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially as we:

Table of Contents

We may never succeed in these activities and, even if we do, may never generate revenues that are sufficient to achieve or sustain profitability. Our failure to become and remain profitable would depress the value of our company and could impair our ability to expand our business, maintain our research and development efforts, diversify our product offerings, or even continue our operations.

We will likely need to raise additional funding, which may not be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Failure to obtain capital when needed may force us to delay, limit or terminate our product development efforts or other operations which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

We expect to incur significant expenses in connection with our on-going activities and that we will likely need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations, in particular if the CSL Behring transaction does not close. In addition, we have based our estimate of our financing requirements on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our capital resources sooner than we currently expect.

Adequate capital may not be available to us when needed or may not be available on acceptable terms. Our ability to obtain debt financing may be limited by covenants we have made under our Second Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement (as amended, the “2018 Amended Facility”) and our 2021 Amended Facility with Hercules and our pledge to Hercules of substantially all our assets as collateral. If we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, our shareholders' ownership interest could be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect the rights of holders of our ordinary shares.

If we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic alliances, or marketing, distribution, or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to issue additional equity, relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams, products, or product candidates, or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on attractive terms, we could be forced to delay, reduce, or eliminate our research and development programs or any future commercialization efforts, which would have a negative impact on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Our existing and any future indebtedness could adversely affect our ability to operate our business.

As of December 31, 2020, we had $35.0 million of outstanding principal of borrowings under the 2018 Amended Facility, which following our January 2021 amendment we are required to repay in June 2023. In January 2021 we drew down a further $35.0 million from Hercules. We could in the future incur additional debt obligations beyond our borrowings from Hercules. Our existing loan obligations, together with other similar obligations that we may incur in the future, could have significant adverse consequences, including:

Table of Contents

We may not have sufficient funds, and may be unable to arrange for additional financing, to pay the amounts due under our existing loan obligations. Failure to make payments or comply with other covenants under our existing debt could result in an event of default and acceleration of amounts due. Under the 2018 Amended Facility as well as the 2021 Amended Facility, the occurrence of an event that would reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on our business, operations, assets, or condition is an event of default. If an event of default occurs and the lender accelerates the amounts due, we may not be able to make accelerated payments, and the lender could seek to enforce security interests in the collateral securing such indebtedness, which includes substantially all our assets.

Risks Related to Other Legal Compliance Matters

Our relationships with customers and third-party payers will be subject to applicable anti-kickback, anti-bribery, fraud and abuse and other laws and regulations, which, if we are found in violation thereof, could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm and diminished profits and future earnings.

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payers will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any products for which we obtain marketing approval. Our future arrangements with third party payers and customers may expose us to broadly applicable anti-bribery laws, including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, as well as fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we would be able to market, sell and distribute any products for which we obtain marketing approval.

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable laws and regulations could involve substantial costs. If our operations, or the activities of our collaborators, distributors or other third-party agents are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal, and administrative penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, exclusion of products from government funded healthcare programs and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. The costs associated with any of these actions could be substantial and could cause irreparable harm to our reputation or otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We are subject to laws governing data protection in the different jurisdictions in which we operate. The implementation of such data protection regimes is complex, and should we fail to fully comply, we may be subject to penalties that may have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Many national and state laws govern the privacy and security of health information and other personal and private information. They often differ from each other in significant ways. For instance, the EU has adopted a comprehensive data protection law called the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) that took effect in May 2018. The GDPR, together with the national legislation of the EU member states governing the processing of personal data, impose strict obligations and restrictions on the ability to collect, analyze and transfer personal data, including health data from clinical trials and adverse event reporting. In particular, these obligations and restrictions concern the consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, the information provided to the individuals, the transfer of personal data out of the EU, security breach notifications, security and confidentiality of the personal data, and imposition of substantial potential fines for breaches of the data protection obligations. The GDPR imposes penalties for non-compliance of up to the greater of EUR 20.0 million or 4% of worldwide revenue. Data protection authorities from the different EU member states may interpret the GDPR and national laws differently and impose additional requirements, which add to the complexity of processing personal data in the EU. Guidance on implementation and compliance practices are often updated or otherwise revised. The significant costs of compliance with, risk of regulatory enforcement actions under, and other burdens imposed by the GDPR as well as under other regulatory schemes throughout the world related to privacy and security of health information and other personal and private data could have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Table of Contents

Product liability lawsuits could cause us to incur substantial liabilities and to limit commercialization of our therapies.

We face an inherent risk of product liability related to the testing of our product candidates in human clinical trials and in connection with product sales. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against claims that our product candidates or products caused injuries, we will incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

Dependent upon the country where the clinical trial is conducted, we currently hold coverages ranging from EUR 500,000 to EUR 6,500,000 per occurrence and per clinical trial. Such coverage may not be adequate to cover all liabilities that we may incur. We may need to increase our insurance coverage as we expand our clinical trials. In addition, insurance coverage is increasingly expensive. 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. In the event insurance coverage is insufficient to cover liabilities that we may incur, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Healthcare legislative and regulatory reform measures may have a material adverse effect on our financial operations.

Our industry is highly regulated and changes in law may adversely impact our business, operations, or financial results. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or the PPACA, is a sweeping measure intended to, among other things, expand healthcare coverage within the United States, primarily through the imposition of health insurance mandates on employers and individuals and expansion of the Medicaid program. Several provisions of the law may affect us and increase certain of our costs.

In addition, other legislative changes have been adopted since the PPACA was enacted. These changes include aggregate reductions in Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, following passage of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, will remain in effect through 2027 unless additional Congressional action is taken. In January 2013, President Obama signed into law the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which could have a material adverse effect on our customers and, accordingly, our financial operations.

We anticipate that the PPACA, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and additional downward pressure on the reimbursement our customers may receive for our products. Further, there have been, and there may continue to be, judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the PPACA. For example, the U.S. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 includes a provision repealing, effective January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the Affordable Care Act on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the "individual mandate". Additional legislative and regulatory changes to the PPACA, its implementing regulations and guidance and its policies, remain possible in the 117th U.S. Congress and under the Biden Administration. However, it remains unclear how any new legislation or regulation might affect the prices we may obtain for any of our product candidates for which regulatory approval is obtained. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare and other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payers. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our products.

Table of Contents

Our internal computer systems, or those of our collaborators or other contractors or consultants, may fail or suffer security breaches, which could result in a material disruption of our product development programs.

Our internal computer systems and those of our current and any future collaborators and other contractors or consultants are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. The size and complexity of our information technology systems, and those of our collaborators, contractors and consultants, and the large amounts of confidential information stored on those systems, make such systems vulnerable to service interruptions or to security breaches from inadvertent or intentional actions by our employees, third-party vendors and/or business partners, or from cyber-attacks by malicious third parties. Cyber-attacks are increasing in their frequency, sophistication, and intensity, and have become increasingly difficult to detect. Cyber-attacks could include the deployment of harmful malware, ransomware, denial-of-service attacks, social engineering, and other means to affect service reliability and threaten the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information. Cyber-attacks also could include phishing attempts or e-mail fraud to cause payments or information to be transmitted to an unintended recipient. The increased number of employees working remotely due to COVID-19 might increase our vulnerability to the above risk.

While we have not experienced a system failure, accident, cyber-attack, or security breach that has resulted in a material interruption in our operations to date, we have experienced and addressed recent system failures, cyber-attacks, and security breaches. In the future, such events could result in a material disruption of our development programs and our business operations, whether due to a loss of our trade secrets, data, or other proprietary information or other similar disruptions. Additionally, any such event that leads to unauthorized access, use or disclosure of personal information, including personal information regarding our patients or employees, could harm our reputation, cause us not to comply with federal and/or state breach notification laws and foreign law equivalents and otherwise subject us to liability under laws and regulations that protect the privacy and security of personal information. Security breaches and other inappropriate access can be difficult to detect, and any delay in identifying them may lead to increased harm of the type described above. While we have implemented security measures to protect our information technology systems and infrastructure, there can be no assurance that such measures will prevent service interruptions or security breaches that could adversely affect our business and the further development and commercialization of our product and product candidates could be delayed.

Risks Related to Employee Matters and Managing Growth

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

We are highly dependent on hiring, training, retaining, and motivating key personnel to lead our research and development, clinical operations, and manufacturing efforts. Although we have entered into employment agreements with our key personnel, each of them may terminate their employment on short notice. We do not maintain key person insurance for any of our senior management or employees.

The loss of the services of our key employees could impede the achievement of our research and development objectives and seriously harm our ability to successfully implement our business strategy. Furthermore, replacing senior management and key employees may be difficult and may take an extended period because of the limited number of individuals in our industry with the breadth and depth of skills and experience required to successfully develop gene therapy products. Competition to hire from this limited pool is intense, and we may be unable to hire, train, retain or motivate these key personnel on acceptable terms.

If we are unable to continue to attract and retain high quality personnel, our ability to pursue our growth strategy will be limited.

Table of Contents

Risks Related to Our Ordinary Shares

The price of our ordinary shares has been and may in the future be volatile and fluctuate substantially.

Our share price has been and may in the future be volatile. From the start of trading of our ordinary shares on the Nasdaq Global Select Market on February 4, 2014 through February 25, 2021, the sale price of our ordinary shares ranged from a high of $82.49 to a low of $4.72. The closing price on February 25, 2021, was $37.00 per ordinary share. The stock market in general and the market for smaller biopharmaceutical companies in particular, have experienced extreme volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. The market price for our ordinary shares may be influenced by many factors, including:

Our directors, executive officers, and major shareholders, if they choose to act together, will continue to have a significant degree of control with respect to matters submitted to shareholders for approval.

Our directors, executive officers and major shareholders holding more than 5% of our outstanding ordinary shares, in the aggregate, beneficially own approximately 50.3% of our issued shares (including such shares to be issued in relation to exercisable options to purchase ordinary shares) as at December 31, 2020. As a result, if these shareholders were to choose to act together, they may be able, as a practical matter, to control many matters submitted to our shareholders for approval, as well as our management and affairs. For example, these persons, if they choose to act together, could control the election of the board directors and the approval of any merger, consolidation, or sale of all or substantially all our assets. These shareholders may have interests that differ from those of other of our shareholders and conflicts of interest may arise.

Provisions of our articles of association or Dutch corporate law might deter acquisition bids for us that might be considered favorable and prevent or frustrate any attempt to replace our board.

Certain provisions of our articles of association may make it more difficult for a third party to acquire control of us or effect a change in our board. These provisions include:

We do not expect to pay dividends in the foreseeable future.

We have not paid any dividends since our incorporation. Even if future operations lead to significant levels of distributable profits, we currently intend that earnings, if any, will be reinvested in our business and that dividends will not be paid until we have an established revenue stream to support continuing dividends. Accordingly, shareholders cannot rely on dividend income from our ordinary shares and any returns on an investment in our ordinary shares will likely depend entirely upon any future appreciation in the price of our ordinary shares.

Table of Contents

If we fail to maintain an effective system of internal controls, we may be unable to accurately report our results of operations or prevent fraud or fail to meet our reporting obligations, and investor confidence and the market price of our ordinary shares may be materially and adversely affected.

If we fail to maintain the adequacy of our internal control over financial reporting, we may not be able to conclude on an ongoing basis that we have effective internal control over financial reporting. If we fail to maintain effective internal control over financial reporting, we could experience material misstatements in our financial statements and fail to meet our reporting obligations, which would likely cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information. This could in turn limit our access to capital markets, harm our results of operations, and lead to a decline in the trading price of our ordinary shares. Additionally, ineffective internal control over financial reporting could expose us to increased risk of fraud or misuse of corporate assets and subject us to potential delisting from The Nasdaq Global Select Market, regulatory investigations and civil or criminal sanctions. Our reporting and compliance obligations may place a significant strain on our management, operational and financial resources, and systems for the foreseeable future.

Risks for U.S. Holders

We have in the past qualified and in the future may qualify as a passive foreign investment company, which may result in adverse U.S. federal income tax consequence to U.S. holders.

Based on our average value of our gross assets, our cash and cash equivalents as well as the price of our shares we qualified as a passive foreign investment company (“PFIC”) for U.S. federal income tax for 2016 but not in 2017, 2018, 2019 or 2020. A corporation organized outside the United States generally will be classified as a PFIC for U.S. federal income tax purposes in any taxable year in which at least 75% of its gross income is passive income or on average at least 50% of the gross value of its assets is attributable to assets that produce passive income or are held to produce passive income. Passive income for this purpose generally includes dividends, interest, royalties, rents and gains from commodities and securities transactions. Our status in any taxable year will depend on our assets and activities in each year, and because this is a factual determination made annually after the end of each taxable year, there can be no assurance that we will continue to qualify as a PFIC in future taxable years. The market value of our assets may be determined in large part by reference to the market price of our ordinary shares, which is likely to fluctuate, and may fluctuate considerably given that market prices of biotechnology companies have been especially volatile. If we were considered a PFIC for the current taxable year or any future taxable year, a U.S. holder would be required to file annual information returns for such year, whether the U.S. holder disposed of any ordinary shares or received any distributions in respect of ordinary shares during such year. In certain circumstances a U.S. holder may be able to make certain tax elections that would lessen the adverse impact of PFIC status; however, to make such elections the U.S. holder will usually have to have been provided information about the company by us, and we do not intend to provide such information.

The U.S. federal income tax rules relating to PFICs are complex. U.S. holders are urged to consult their tax advisors with respect to the purchase, ownership and disposition of our shares, the possible implications to them of us being treated as a PFIC (including the availability of applicable election, whether making any such election would be advisable in their particular circumstances) as well as the federal, state, local and foreign tax considerations applicable to such holders in connection with the purchase, ownership, and disposition of our shares.

Any U.S. or other foreign judgments may be difficult to enforce against us in the Netherlands.

Although we now report as a U.S. domestic filer for SEC reporting purposes, we are incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands. Some of the members of our board and senior management reside outside the United States. As a result, it may not be possible for shareholders to effect service of process within the United States upon such persons or to enforce judgments against them or us in U.S. courts, including judgments predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the federal securities laws of the United States. In addition, it is not clear whether a Dutch court would impose civil liability on us or any of our Board members in an original action based solely upon the federal securities laws of the United States brought in a court of competent jurisdiction in the Netherlands.

Table of Contents

The United States and the Netherlands currently do not have a treaty providing for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments, other than arbitration awards, in civil and commercial matters. Consequently, a final judgment for payment given by a court in the United States, whether or not predicated solely upon U.S. securities laws, would not automatically be recognized or enforceable in the Netherlands. To obtain a judgment which is enforceable in the Netherlands, the party in whose favor a final and conclusive judgment of the U.S. court has been rendered will be required to file its claim with a court of competent jurisdiction in the Netherlands. Such party may submit to the Dutch court the final judgment rendered by the U.S. court. If and to the extent that the Dutch court finds that the jurisdiction of the U.S. court has been based on grounds which are internationally acceptable and that proper legal procedures have been observed, the Dutch court will, in principle, give binding effect to the judgment of the U.S. court, unless such judgment contravenes principles of public policy of the Netherlands. Dutch courts may deny the recognition and enforcement of punitive damages or other awards. Moreover, a Dutch court may reduce the amount of damages granted by a U.S. court and recognize damages only to the extent that they are necessary to compensate actual losses or damages. Enforcement and recognition of judgments of U.S. courts in the Netherlands are solely governed by the provisions of the Dutch Civil Procedure Code.

Therefore U.S. shareholders may not be able to enforce against us or our board members or senior management who are residents of the Netherlands or countries other than the United States any judgments obtained in U.S. courts in civil and commercial matters, including judgments under the U.S. federal securities laws.

The rights and responsibilities of our shareholders and directors are governed by Dutch law and differ in some important respects from the rights and responsibilities of shareholders under U.S. law.

Although we now report as a U.S. domestic filer for SEC purposes, our corporate affairs are governed by our articles of association and by the laws governing companies incorporated in the Netherlands. The rights of our shareholders and the responsibilities of members of our board under Dutch law are different than under the laws of some U.S. jurisdictions. In the performance of their duties, our board members are required by Dutch law to consider the interests of uniQure, its shareholders, its employees, and other stakeholders and not only those of our shareholders (as would be required under the law of most U.S. jurisdictions). As a result of these considerations our directors may take action that would be different than those that would be taken by a company organized under the law of some U.S. jurisdictions.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Business developments

​

Below is a summary of our recent significant business developments:

CSL Behring commercialization and license agreement

On June 24, 2020, uniQure biopharma B.V., a wholly owned subsidiary of uniQure N.V., entered into the CSL Behring Agreement with CSL Behring pursuant to which CSL Behring will receive exclusive global rights to etranacogene dezaparvovec, the Product.

Under the terms of the CSL Behring Agreement, we will receive a $450.0 million upfront cash payment upon the closing of the CSL Behring Agreement and be eligible to receive up to $1.6 billion in additional payments based on regulatory and commercial milestones. The CSL Behring agreement also provides that we will be eligible to receive tiered double-digit royalties in a range of up to a low-twenties percent of net sales of the Product based on sales thresholds.

Pursuant to the CSL Behring Agreement, we will be responsible for the completion of the HOPE-B clinical trial, manufacturing process validation, and the manufacturing supply of the Product until such time that these capabilities may be transferred to CSL Behring or its designated contract manufacturing organization. Concurrently with the execution of the CSL Behring Agreement, we and CSL Behring entered into a development and commercial supply agreement, pursuant to which, among other things, we will supply the Product to CSL Behring at an agreed-upon price. Clinical development and regulatory activities performed by us pursuant to the CSL Behring Agreement will be reimbursed by CSL Behring. CSL Behring will be responsible for global regulatory submissions and commercialization requirements for the Product.

Other than under the CSL Behring Agreement, neither we nor CSL Behring may perform any clinical trials, with the exception of trials required to extend the label or gain marketing authorization outside the United States or the European Union, for any gene therapy product, gene-editing product, or any other product comprising an AAV vector to conduct nucleotide transfer (including DNA and RNA) for the treatment, prevention, or cure of hemophilia B for a period commencing on June 24, 2020 and continuing for a period of four years following the first commercial sale of the Product in the United States, and neither we nor CSL Behring may commercialize such a product for a period commencing as of June 24, 2020 and continuing for a period of seven years following the first commercial sale of the Product in the United States. This exclusivity commitment would not bind an acquirer of us that owns or controls such a product so long as certain precautions are followed to ensure that CSL Behring’s confidential information and our proprietary technology related to the Product are not used or accessed by personnel of such acquirer who are developing or commercializing such competing product.

Unless earlier terminated as described below, the CSL Behring Agreement will continue on a country-by-country basis until expiration of the royalty term in a country. The royalty term expires in a country on the later of (a) 15 years after the first commercial sale of the Product in such country, (b) expiration of regulatory exclusivity for the Product in such country and (c) expiration of all valid claims of specific licensed patents covering the Product in such country. Either we or CSL Behring may terminate the CSL Behring Agreement for the other party’s material breach if such breach is not cured within a specified cure period. In addition, if CSL Behring fails to commercialize the Product in any of a group of major countries for an extended period following the first regulatory approval of the Product in any of such group of countries (other than due to certain specified reasons) and such failure has not been cured within a specified cure period, then we may terminate the CSL Behring Agreement. CSL Behring may also terminate the CSL Behring Agreement for convenience.

On November 11, 2020, the ACCC determined, pursuant to section 50 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 of Australia, that it will not intervene in the CSL Behring Agreement. Thus, the ACCC has completed its review of the CSL Behring Agreement, and the transactions contemplated by the CSL Behring Agreement may close from the perspective of the Australian competition authority.

On November 24, 2020, the Competition and Markets Authority in the United Kingdom (the “CMA”) adopted a decision not to refer the CSL Behring Agreement for proceedings under section 33 of the Enterprise Act 2002 of the United Kingdom. The decision was made public by the CMA on January 6, 2021. Thus, the CMA has completed its review of the CSL Behring Agreement, and the transactions contemplated by the CSL Behring Agreement may close from the perspective of the United Kingdom competition authority.

Table of Contents

On December 3, 2020, we and CSL Behring filed a premerger notification and report form under the HSR Act. On January 4, 2021, the FTC issued a Second Request under the HSR Act. The FTC similarly issued a Second Request to CSL Behring also with respect to the antitrust review of the CSL Behring Agreement. The effect of the Second Requests is to extend the waiting period imposed under the HSR Act until 30 days after all parties to the CSL Behring Agreement have substantially complied with the requests unless the waiting period is terminated earlier by the FTC or voluntarily extended by the parties.  

The effectiveness of the transactions contemplated by the CSL Behring Agreement is contingent on completion of review under antitrust laws in the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom and certain provisions of the CSL Behring Agreement will not become effective until after we receive such regulatory approvals. Regulatory approval in the United States has not occurred to date.

Closing of the transaction is expected to materially impact our profitability and cash flows. Receipt of the $450.0 million payment due on closing would extend the funding of our operations from the second half of 2022 into the second half of 2024 (assuming a full repayment of funds borrowed from Hercules under our term loan facility by 2023). However, we expect to continue to incur losses and to generate negative cash flows beyond the fiscal year in which we would close the transaction.

BMS collaboration

We and Bristol-Myers Squibb entered into a collaboration and license agreement in May 2015. BMS initially designated four Collaboration Targets in 2015 and in accordance with the terms of the BMS CLA could have designated a fifth to tenth Collaboration Target.

In February 2019, BMS requested a one-year extension of the initial research term. In April 2019, following an assessment of the progress of this collaboration and our expanding proprietary programs, we notified BMS that we did not intend to agree to an extension of the initial research term. Accordingly, the initial four-year research term under the collaboration terminated on May 21, 2019.

On December 1, 2020, we and BMS amended the BMS CLA. Following the amendment BMS is no longer entitled to designate a fifth to tenth Collaboration Target and as such we are no longer entitled to receive an aggregate $16.5 million in target designation payments for the research, development, and regulatory milestone payments related to the fifth to tenth Collaboration Targets. For a period of one year from the effective date of the amended BMS CLA, BMS may replace up to two of the four active Collaboration Targets with two new targets in the field of cardiovascular disease. We continue to be entitled to receive up to $217.0 million for each of the four Collaboration Targets if defined milestones are achieved, as well as royalties on net sales associated with any Collaboration Target. On December 17, 2020, BMS designated one of the four Collaboration Targets as a candidate to advance into IND-enabling studies entitling the Company to receive a $4.4 million research milestone payment. The Company recorded the $4.4 million as License Revenue in the twelve-month period ended December 31, 2020.

The amended BMS CLA does not extend the initial research term. BMS may place purchase orders to provide limited services primarily related to analytical and development efforts in respect of the four Collaboration Targets. BMS may request such services for a period not to exceed the earlier of (i) the completion of all activities under a Research Plan and (ii) either (A) three years after the last replacement target has been designated by BMS during the one-year replacement period following the amended BMS CLA effective date or (B) three years if no replacement targets are designated during this one-year period and BMS continues to reimburse us for these services.

For as long as any of the four Collaboration Targets are being advanced, BMS may place a purchase order to be supplied with research, clinical and commercial supplies. Subject to the terms of the amended BMS CLA, BMS has the right to terminate the research, clinical and commercial supply relationships, and has certain remedies for failures of supply, up to and including technology transfer for any such failure that otherwise cannot be reasonably resolved. Both we and BMS may agree to a technology transfer of manufacturing capabilities pursuant to the terms of the amended BMS CLA.

Table of Contents

The amended BMS CLA also terminated two warrants to increase BMS ownership in the Company to up to 19.9% through purchasing a specific number of our ordinary shares following the designation of a seventh and a tenth Collaboration Target, respectively. We and BMS agreed that upon the consummation of a change of control transaction of uniQure that occurs prior to the earlier of (i) December 1, 2026 and (ii) BMS’ delivery of a target cessation notice for all four Collaboration Targets, we (or our third party acquirer) shall pay to BMS a one-time, non-refundable, non-creditable cash payment of $70.0 million, provided that (x) if $70.0 million is greater than five percent of the net proceeds (as contractually defined) from such change of control transaction, the payment shall be an amount equal to five percent of such net proceeds, and (y) if $70.0 million is less than one percent of such net proceeds, the change of control payment shall be an amount equal to one percent of such net proceeds. We have not consummated any change of control transaction as of December 31, 2020 that would obligate us to make a payment to BMS.

Hemophilia B program – Etranacogene dezaparvovec (AMT-061)

In August 2018, we initiated a Phase IIb dose-confirmation study of etranacogene dezaparvovec and in September 2018, we completed the dosing for that study. In February, May, July, and December 2019, and in December 2020, we presented updated data from the Phase IIb dose-confirmation study of etranacogene dezaparvovec. The most recent data that we announced from the Phase IIb study of etranacogene dezaparvovec show that all three patients experienced increasing and sustained FIX levels after a one-time administration of etranacogene dezaparvovec. Mean FIX activity was 44.2% of normal two years after administration, exceeding threshold FIX levels generally considered sufficient to significantly reduce the risk of bleeding events. The first patient achieved FIX activity of 44.7% of normal, the second patient was 51.6% of normal and the third patient was 36.3% of normal. The second and third patients had previously screen-failed and were excluded from another gene therapy study due to pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to a different AAV vector. At two years after dosing, two of the three participants remain free from bleeds and use of FIX replacement therapy. A single bleed has been reported in one participant, who has used a total of two FIX infusions (excluding surgery). All patients have remained free of prophylaxis in the two years since receiving etranacogene dezaparvovec.

In June 2018, we initiated the six-month lead-in period of our HOPE-B trial. The HOPE-B trial is a multinational, multi-center, open-label, single-arm study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of etranacogene dezaparvovec. After the six-month lead-in period, patients received a single intravenous administration of etranacogene dezaparvovec. Patients enrolled in the HOPE-B trial were tested for the presence of pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to AAV5 but not excluded from the trial based on their titers.

The primary endpoints of the study are based on the FIX activity level achieved following the administration of etranacogene dezaparvovec after 26 weeks and 52 weeks after dosing as well annualized bleed rates during the 52 weeks after dosing.

In March 2020, we completed dosing of the 54 patients in the HOPE-B trial. The targeted number of patients to be dosed per the clinical trial protocol was 50. In December 2020, we announced top-line data from the HOPE-B trial. The 26-week follow-up date from the trial showed that FIX activity in the 54 patients increased after dosing from ≤ 2% to a mean of 37.2% at 26 weeks, meeting a first primary endpoint of the HOPE-B trial. No correlation between pre-existing neutralizing antibodies and FIX activity was found in patients with neutralizing antibody titers up to 678.2, a range expected to include more than 95% of the general population; one patient with a neutralizing antibody titer of 3,212.3 did not show an increase in FIX activity. Less than 1% of the general population is expected to have neutralizing antibody titers of greater than 3,000.

Table of Contents

During the 26-week period after dosing, 15 patients (28%) reported a total of 21 bleeding events, representing a reduction of 83% compared to the 123 bleeding events reported by 38 patients (70%) during the observational lead-in phase of the trial. Total bleeds include any bleeding event reported after the treatment of etranacogene dezaparvovec, including spontaneous, traumatic, and those associated with unrelated medical procedures, whether or not FIX treatment was required. Of the total bleeding events reported during the 26-week period after dosing, only three were classified as spontaneous bleeds requiring treatment, representing a reduction of 92% compared to the 37 such bleeding events reported during the observational lead-in phase. Mean annualized usage of FIX replacement therapy, a secondary endpoint in the clinical trial, declined by 96% during the 26-week period after dosing compared to the observational lead-in phase. Etranacogene dezaparvovec was generally well-tolerated. As of the November 2020 cut-off date, most adverse events were classified as mild (81.5%). The most common events included transaminase elevation treated with steroids per protocol (9 patients; 17%), infusion-related reactions (7 patients; 13%), headache (7 patients; 13%) and influenza-like symptoms (7 patients; 13%). Liver enzyme elevations resolved with a tapering course of corticosteroids and FIX activity remained in the mild range in the steroid treated patients. No relationship between safety and neutralizing antibody titers was observed. Based on interactions with the FDA and the EMA, we plan to incorporate FIX activity and bleeding rates at 52 weeks as additional co-primary endpoints in the study.

On December 21, 2020, our clinical trials of etranacogene dezaparvovec, including our HOPE-B trial were placed on clinical hold by the FDA. The clinical hold was initiated following the submission of a safety report in mid-December relating to a possibly related serious adverse event associated with a preliminary diagnosis of HCC, a form of liver cancer, in one patient in the HOPE-B trial that was treated with etranacogene dezaparvovec in October 2019. The patient has multiple risk factors associated with HCC, including a twenty-five-year history of HCV, HBV, evidence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and advanced age. Chronic infections with hepatitis B and C have been associated with approximately 80% of HCC cases.

The liver lesion was detected during a routine abdominal ultrasound conducted as part of the required study assessments in patients at one-year post dosing. A surgical resection of the lesion has occurred, and an analysis of the tissue samples was initiated in early 2021. On February 19, 2021, we reported initial results from this analysis to the FDA in accordance with pharmacovigilance requirements. We are gathering final data from these molecular analyses and will be preparing a detailed response to the FDA’s clinical hold questions regarding this event. Currently, we do not have adequate data to determine a possible causal relationship, especially in the context of the other known risk factors. We currently do not anticipate any impact on our regulatory submission timelines, including the filing of a BLA.

No other cases of HCC have been reported in our clinical trials conducted in more than 67 patients in hemophilia B, with some patients dosed more than 5 years ago.

Phase I/II Clinical Trial of AMT-060

In the third quarter of 2015, we initiated a Phase I/II clinical trial of AMT-060, our first-generation hemophilia B product candidate, in patients with severe or moderately-severe hemophilia B. We enrolled five patients into a low dose cohort in the third quarter 2015. Another five patients were enrolled into a high dose cohort between March and May 2016.

In December 2020, we presented five-year follow-up data related to this Phase I/II clinical trial. All 10 patients enrolled continue to show long-term clinical benefit, including sustained increases in FIX activity, reduced usage of FIX replacement therapy, and decreased bleeding frequency. At up to five years of follow-up, AMT-060 continues to be well-tolerated, with no new treatment-related adverse events since the last reported data and no development of inhibitors during the study.

Table of Contents

Huntington’s disease program (AMT-130)

AMT-130 is our gene therapy candidate targeting Huntington’s disease that utilizes an AAV vector carrying an engineered miRNA designed to silence HTT and exon 1 HTT, a potentially highly toxic protein fragment that may also contribute to disease pathology. AMT-130 comprises a recombinant AAV5 vector carrying a DNA cassette, encoding a miRNA that non-selectively lowers or knocks-down HTT and exon 1 HTT in Huntington’s disease patients.

In January 2019, our IND application for AMT-130 was cleared by the FDA, thereby enabling us to initiate our planned Phase I/II clinical study. The primary objective of the study is to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of AMT-130 at two doses.

In June 2020, we announced the completion of the first two patient procedures in the Phase I/II clinical trial of AMT-130 for the treatment of Huntington’s disease. These procedures occurred after a postponement that resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated states of emergency declarations in the United States. The Phase I/II protocol is a randomized, imitation surgery-controlled, double-blinded study conducted at three surgical sites, and multiple referring, non-surgical sites in the U.S. The primary objective of the study is to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of AMT-130 at two doses.

On September 25, 2020, we announced that the independent Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) overseeing the Phase I/II clinical trial of AMT-130 for the treatment of Huntington’s disease has met and reviewed 90-day safety data from the first two patients enrolled in the trial. No significant safety concerns were noted to prevent further dosing.

On October 13, 2020, we announced the completion of the third and fourth patient procedures in the Phase I/II clinical trial.

On February 8, 2021, we announced that the DSMB met and reviewed the six-month safety data from the first two enrolled patients and the 90-day safety data from the next two enrolled patients in the study. No significant safety concerns were noted to prevent further dosing, and the final six patients in the first cohort are now cleared for enrollment.

Preclinical programs

Spinocerebellar Ataxia Type 3 program (AMT-150)

AMT-150 is our novel gene therapy candidate for the treatment of SCA3, also known as Machado-Joseph disease, which is caused by a CAG-repeat expansion in the ATXN3 gene that results in an abnormal form of the protein ataxin-3.  AMT-150 is a one-time, intrathecally-administered, AAV gene therapy incorporating our proprietary miQURE silencing technology that is designed to halt ataxia in early manifest SCA3 patients.

At the 2019 American Academy of Neurology Annual Meeting, we presented preclinical data on AMT-150 demonstrating mechanistic proof-of-concept of the non-allele-specific ataxin-3 protein-silencing approach by using artificial miRNA candidates engineered to target the ataxin-3 gene in a SCA3 knock-in mouse model. In this proof-of-concept study, a single AMT-150 injection in the cerebrospinal fluid resulted in AAV transduction and mutant ataxin-3 lowering at the primary sites of disease neuropathology, the cerebellum (up to 53%) and the brainstem (up to 65%).  

In May 2020, we presented preclinical data at the ASGCT Annual Meeting, on our gene therapy candidate SCA3. In an in vivo preclinical study, six NHP received a one-time injection of AMT-150 via the cisterna magna to assess expression and distribution. Samples taken after eight weeks showed widespread transduction of the brain and spinal cord, with the highest genome copies found in the posterior fossa and cortical regions. In other preclinical studies, researchers evaluated AMT-150 in SCA3 mouse models, as well as human iPSC-derived neurons and astrocytes, to investigate potential off-target effects of AAV5-miATXN3. The iPSC-derived cell cultures, which were derived from two SCA3 patients, represent the most disease-relevant cell type for therapeutic targeting of AMT-150. A clear dose-dependent expression of miATXN3 was observed in the iPSC-derived neurons and astrocytes transduced with AMT-150. Mature miATXN3 molecules were also associated with extracellular vesicles that strongly correlated with the dose and miATXN3 expression, suggesting the potential therapeutic spread of the engineered miATXN3. Additionally, AMT-150 demonstrated ATXN3 knockdown in human neurons and various SCA3 mouse models with subsequent neuropathology improvement.

In September 2020, we initiated a safety and toxicology study of AMT-150 in NHP.

Table of Contents

Fabry disease program (AMT-190)

AMT-190 is our novel gene therapy candidate for the treatment of Fabry disease. AMT-190 is a one-time, IV-administered, AAV5-based gene therapy.

In September 2020, we selected a lead gene therapy candidate (AMT-190) for the treatment of Fabry disease to advance into IND-enabling studies. The lead candidate is a one-time administered AAV5 gene therapy incorporating the α-galactosidase A (GLA) transgene. In preclinical studies comparing multiple product candidates, including constructs incorporating a modified alpha-N-acetylgalactosaminidase transgene (modNAGA), AMT-190 demonstrated the most robust and sustained increases in GLA activity.

Hemophilia A program (AMT-180)

In June 2020, we announced that we plan to de-prioritize our research program of AMT-180 for patients with hemophilia A, as part of our effort to focus on those gene therapy programs that have the greatest potential to improve patients’ lives and generate long-term value for shareholders.

Term loan facility

​

As of December 31, 2020, a $35.0 million term loan was outstanding in accordance with the 2018 Amended Facility between us and Hercules.

​

On January 29, 2021 we and Hercules entered into the 2021 Amended Facility. Pursuant to the 2021 Amended Facility, Hercules agreed to the 2021 Term Loan, increasing the aggregate principal amount of the term loan facility from $35.0 million to up to $135.0 million. On January 29, 2021 we drew down $35.0 million of the 2021 Term Loan. We may draw down the remaining $65.0 million under the 2021 Term Loan in a series of one or more advances of not less than $20.0 million each until December 15, 2021. Advances under the 2021 Term Loan bear interest at a rate equal to the greater of (i) 8.25% or (ii) 8.25% plus the prime rate, less 3.25% per annum. The principal balance and all accrued but unpaid interest on advances under the 2021 Term Loan is due on June 1, 2023, which date may be extended by us by up to two twelve-month periods. Advances under the 2021 Term Loan may not be prepaid until six months after the Closing Date, following which we may prepay all such advances without charge.

​

In addition to the 2021 Term Loan, the amendment also extends the interest only payment period of the previously funded $35.0 million term loan from January 1, 2022 to June l, 2023. End of term charges in respect of advances under the 2021 Term Loan range from 1.65% to 6.85%, depending on the maturity date.

​

​

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

COVID-19 measures

Starting March 2020, we implemented measures to address the impact of COVID-19 on our business. We mandated a work-from-home policy for all non-essential employees at our Amsterdam and Lexington facilities when the pandemic began. We implemented a series of protocols governing the operations of our Lexington facility to comply with the requirements of the various orders and guidance from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and other related orders, guidance, laws, and regulations. We supported our employees in setting up a healthy and efficient remote working environment. In conjunction with implementing this policy, we accelerated the roll-out of several information technology security measures such as dual factor authentication, to address the increased risks that to which we might be exposed as a result of remote working conditions. In addition, we conducted awareness training around cybersecurity for critical functions involved in making payments to vendors such as finance and supply chain. We continue to monitor local government rules and recommendations and office protocols will be aligned with these rules and recommendations.

We conduct frequent status video-meetings of local management at our two sites as well as leadership-team video meetings to implement these measures and to monitor the evolving situation. In addition, we inform our employees through periodic newsletters and have organized virtual local and global townhalls to share information and provide direction and support to our employees.

We started to reopen the Amsterdam and Lexington facilities in phases, in line with the reopening plans that are prescribed by the local government. Between June 1, 2020 until September 29, 2020, we encouraged our Amsterdam employees to work a minimum of two days per week from the office, and approximately 50% of local staff worked on site during that period. As of September 29, 2020, we reinstated the mandatory work-from-home policy that was initiated in March in Amsterdam to align with the updated Dutch government’s measures. Employees based in Amsterdam who cannot perform their duties outside of our Amsterdam facility will continue to work at our Amsterdam facility. We adapted to operate our laboratories at our Amsterdam site to comply with social distancing rules and to ensure the health and wellbeing of our employees under the current circumstances. All other employees in Amsterdam will work from home through at least the end of August 2021, partly in conjunction with the ongoing expansion of our laboratory space.

As a biopharma research and development company, we were deemed to provide essential services under the “stay at home” advisory that was issued by the Governor of Massachusetts on March 23, 2020 and we therefore have maintained our manufacturing operations at our Lexington site. To ensure adequate social distancing in our Lexington facility, our COVID-19 protocols generally have limited occupancy to numbers below those allowed by the Massachusetts COVID-19 guidelines. In our Lexington facility, we currently have implemented an occupancy limitation of approximately 25%. Our employees that cannot perform their duties outside of our Lexington facility continue to work at our Lexington facility. All other employees are required to work remotely to the extent possible through at least the end of the second quarter of 2021. Our actual occupancy at the Lexington facility has been less than approximately 25% of our permitted occupancy during all phases of the Massachusetts reopening plan. We have also implemented a mandatory COVID-19 PCR testing protocol effective February 11, 2021 that requires employees to have tested negative for COVID-19 prior to entering the Lexington facility.

We have adapted our ongoing clinical research activities based on the directions and flexibility provided by the “FDA Guidance on Conduct of Clinical Trials of Medical Products during COVID-19 Pandemic” issued on March 18, 2020 and updated throughout the pandemic to minimize any risk, disruption or delay in either patient dosing or follow-up visits. These procedures occurred after a postponement that resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated states of emergency declarations in the United States.

The broader implications of COVID-19 on our results of operations and overall financial performance remain uncertain. The COVID-19 pandemic and its adverse effects have become more prevalent in the locations where we, and our third-party business partners conduct business. While we have experienced disruptions in our operations as a result of COVID-19, we are adapting to the current environment to minimize the effect to our business. However, we may experience more pronounced disruptions in our operations in the future.

Related party transaction

On December 1, 2020, we and BMS entered into the amended BMS CLA. All transactions subsequent to the effective date of the amended BMS CLA are considered to no longer be with a related party.

​

Table of Contents

As of December 31, 2020, we had cash and cash equivalents of $244.9 million (December 31, 2019: $377.8 million). We had a net loss of $125.0 million in 2020, $124.2 million in 2019 and $83.3 million in 2018. As of December 31, 2020, we had an accumulated deficit of $784.7 million (December 31, 2019: $659.7 million).

​

We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially as we:

See “Results of Operations” below for a discussion of the detailed components and analysis of the amounts above.

Table of Contents

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

In preparing our consolidated financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP and pursuant to the rules and regulations promulgated by the SEC we make assumptions, judgments and estimates that can have a significant impact on our net income/loss and affect the reported amounts of certain assets, liabilities, revenue and expenses, and related disclosures. On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our estimates and judgments, including those related to the treatment of the CSL Behring Agreement, the amended BMS CLA, share-based payments, corporate income taxes related to valuation allowance and accounting for operating leases under ASC 842. We base our assumptions, judgments and estimates on historical experience and various other factors that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not clear from other sources. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions. In making estimates and judgments, management employs critical accounting policies. We also discuss our critical accounting policies and estimates with the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors.

We believe that the assumptions, judgments, and estimates involved in the treatment of the CSL Behring Agreement, the amended BMS CLA, share-based payments, corporate income taxes related to valuation allowance and accounting for operating leases under ASC 842 to be our critical accounting policies. Historically, our assumptions, judgments and estimates relative to our critical accounting policies have not differed materially from actual results.

CSL Behring Agreement

The effectiveness of the transactions contemplated by the CSL Behring Agreement is contingent on completion of review under antitrust laws in the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom and certain provisions of the CSL Behring Agreement will not become effective until after we receive all such regulatory approvals. We obtained regulatory approvals in Australia and the United Kingdom prior to January 6, 2021. We received a Second Request from the FTC on January 4, 2021, and as such, regulatory approval in the United States has not occurred to date. We do not believe that the FTC will determine that the consummation of the transaction will result in a violation of the HSR Act. However, there can be no assurance as to the outcome of the Second Request.

As of December 31, 2020, we concluded that we have no enforceable right to receive the $450.0 million upfront payment, in accordance with the CSL Behring Agreement as payment is contingent upon the successful completion of reviews under the HSR Act. Therefore, we determined we will not recognize any revenue in relation to the upfront payment, the regulatory and sale milestone payments, or the royalties (together “CSL Behring License Revenue”) in accordance with ASC 606. We incurred $2.1 million of expenses related to obligations related to the CSL Behring Agreement that had not been satisfied as of December 31, 2020. We capitalized these expenses as we believe these qualify as contract fulfillment costs. As of December 31, 2020, we also recognized a $2.1 million receivable from CSL Behring for expenses for which we have a right of reimbursement as well as a contract liability for the same amount. In accordance with ASC 606, we cannot recognize any revenue in connection with the CSL Behring Agreement as of this date.

In accordance with our existing license and other agreements, we are contractually required to pay in total a low to high single digit percentage of any upfront payment to our licensors and financial advisor (“License Fees”). We did not record any License Fees in the year ended December 31, 2020, as we had not recognized the upfront payment as of this date.

Amended BMS CLA

​

In May 2015, we entered into a collaboration and license agreement and various related agreements with BMS, which we collectively refer to as the BMS CLA, which provided BMS with exclusive access to our gene therapy technology platform for the research, development and commercialization of therapeutics aimed at multiple targets in cardiovascular and other diseases. The BMS CLA provided that we and BMS could have potentially collaborated on up to ten Collaboration Targets in total. The initial four-year research term under the collaboration terminated on May 21, 2019. During the initial research term of the BMS CLA, BMS, at its option, could purchase non-clinical, analytical and process development effort services. For any Collaboration Targets that might have been advanced, BMS could have purchased clinical and commercial supplies from us. BMS reimbursed us for the services in support of the collaboration during the initial research term, and leads the development, regulatory and commercial activities for any Collaboration Targets that are advanced.

​

Table of Contents

On December 1, 2020, we and BMS amended the BMS CLA. Following the amendment BMS is no longer entitled to designate a fifth to tenth Collaboration Target and as such we are no longer entitled to receive an aggregate $16.5 million in target designation payments or research, development, and regulatory milestone payments related to the fifth and tenth Collaboration Targets. For a period of one year from the effective date of the amended BMS CLA, BMS may replace up to two of the four active Collaboration Targets with two new targets in the field of cardiovascular disease. We continue to be entitled to receive up to $217.0 million for each of the four Collaboration Targets if defined milestones are achieved, as well as royalties on net sales associated with any Collaboration Target.

​

We evaluated the impact of the amendment of the BMS CLA in relation to our performance obligation related to:

​

​

We did not identify any new distinct performance obligations and determined the amended BMS CLA did not represent a separate contract in accordance with ASC 606.  We evaluated the effect the modification has on our measure of progress towards the completion of our performance obligation in relation to License Revenue and recorded an adjustment to License Revenue as of December 1, 2020. The estimation of total services at the end of each reporting period involves considerable judgement.

​

The amount of services we expect to provide is significantly impacted by the number of Collaboration Targets that we estimate BMS would pursue. We considered that BMS may no longer designate potentially up to six Collaboration Targets in addition to the currently four active targets. We evaluated our obligations with respect to the two replacement cardiovascular indications that BMS might potentially designate until November 30, 2021, and the services we expected to perform in relation to participating in joint steering committee and other governing bodies as well as the effort required to actively contribute to the target selection process or the collaboration as a whole. Based on this we concluded that our remaining performance obligation is immaterial and adjusted our measure of progress accordingly. As such we recognized the remaining balance of unrecognized License Revenue as of November 30, 2020 of $27.8 million in profit and loss during the year ended December 31, 2020 as License Revenue from a related party.

​

In 2015 we granted BMS two warrants, which were terminated in connection with the amendment to the BMS CLA. We granted to BMS:

​

​

Pursuant to the terms of the BMS CLA the exercise price in respect of each warrant was equal to the greater of (i) the product of (A) $33.84, multiplied by (B) a compounded annual growth rate of 10% (or approximately $57.32 as of November 30, 2020) and (ii) the product of (A) 1.10 multiplied by (B) the volume weighted average price (“VWAP”) for the 20 trading days ending on the date that is five trading days prior to the date of a notice of exercise delivered by BMS.

Table of Contents

We used Monte-Carlo simulations to determine the fair market value of the BMS warrants. The valuation model incorporated several inputs, the risk-free rate adjusted for the period affected, an expected volatility based on our historical volatility, the expected yield on any dividends and management’s expectations on the timelines of reaching certain defined trigger events for the exercising of the warrants, as well as management’s expectations regarding the number of ordinary shares that would be issued upon exercise of the warrants. All of these represent Level 3 inputs. Additionally, the model assumed BMS would exercise the warrants only if it were financially rational to do so. The warrants could only have been exercised following the occurrence of events contractually defined in the warrant agreements. The probability of the occurrence of these events represented another significant unobservable input used in the calculation of the fair value of the warrants. The fair value of the warrants as of December 31, 2019 was $3.1 million. During the year ended December 31, 2020, we recognized a $3.1 million gain in non-operating income / expense (December 31, 2019: $2.3 million loss; December 31, 2018: $0.5 million gain) related to fair value changes of the BMS warrants. The gain recognized in the year ended December 31, 2020 includes $0.8 million from the derecognition of the BMS warrants on December 1, 2020.

On December 1, 2020, we and BMS terminated the BMS warrants and agreed that upon the consummation of a change of control transaction of uniQure that occurs prior to the earlier of (i) December 1, 2026 and (ii) BMS’ delivery of a target cessation notice for all four Collaboration Targets, uniQure (or its third party acquirer) shall pay to BMS a one-time, non-refundable, non-creditable cash payment of $70.0 million, provided that (x) if $70.0 million is greater than five percent (5.0%) of the net proceeds (as contractually defined) from such change of control transaction, the payment shall be an amount equal to five percent of such net proceeds, and (y) if $70.0 million is less than one percent of such net proceeds, the change of control payment shall be an amount equal to one percent of such net proceeds (“CoC-payment”). We have not consummated any change of control transaction as of December 31, 2020 that would obligate us to make a CoC-payment. We determined that the CoC-payment should be recorded as a derivative financial liability as of December 1, 2020 and that subsequent changes in the fair market value of this derivative financial liability should be recorded in profit and loss. The fair market value of the derivative financial liability is materially impacted by probability that market participants assign to the likelihood of the occurrence of a change of control transaction that would give rise to a CoC-payment. This probability represents an unobservable input. We determined the fair market value of the derivative financial liability by using a present value model based on expected cash flow. The expected cash flows are materially impacted by the probability that market participants assign to the likelihood of the occurrence of a change of control event within the biotechnology industry. We estimated this unobservable input using the best information available as of December 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020. We obtained reasonably available market information that we believe market participants would use in determining the likelihood of the occurrence of a change-of control transaction within the biotechnology industry. Selecting and evaluating market information involves considerable judgement and uncertainty. Based on all such information and our judgment we estimated that the fair market value of the derivative financial liability (presented within “Other non-current liabilities”) as of December 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020 was $2.6 million. We recorded a $2.6 million loss within “other non-operating expenses” in the twelve-month period ended December 31, 2020 related to the initial recognition of this derivative financial liability.

​

Share-based payments

​

We issue share-based compensation awards, in the form of options to purchase ordinary shares, restricted share units and performance share units, to certain of our employees, executive and non-executive board members, and consultants. We measure share-based compensation expense related to these awards by reference to the estimated fair value of the award at the date of grant. The awards are subject to service and/or performance-based vesting conditions. The total amount of the awards is expensed on a straight-line basis over the requisite vesting period.

​

We use a Hull & White option model to determine the fair value of option awards. The model captures early exercises by assuming that the likelihood of exercise will increase when the share-price reaches defined multiples of the strike price. This analysis is made over the full contractual term.

​

At each balance sheet date, we revise our estimate of the number of options that are expected to become exercisable. We recognize the impact of the revision of original estimates, if any, in the statements of operations and comprehensive loss and a corresponding adjustment to equity. We expect all vested options to be exercised over the remainder of their contractual life. We consider the expected life of the options to be in line with the average remaining term of the options post vesting.

​

We account for share options as an expense in the statements of operations and comprehensive loss over the estimated vesting period, with a corresponding contribution to equity, as they are all equity-classified.

​

Table of Contents

​

Corporate income taxes

​

We are subject to corporate taxes in the Netherlands and the United States of America. Significant judgment is required in determining the valuation allowance in relation to our net operating loss carry forwards. We have been incurring net operating losses in accordance with the respective corporate tax laws in almost all years since we founded our business. As of December 31, 2020, the total amount of net operating losses carried forward under the Dutch tax regime was $588.2 million and $42.3 million in the United States of America.

We reassessed the need for a full valuation allowance in conjunction with entering into the CSL Behring Agreement. The effectiveness of the transactions contemplated by the CSL Behring Agreement is contingent on completion of review under antitrust laws in the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom. Regulatory approval in the United States has not occurred to date. We recognize deferred tax assets to the extent that we determine that these assets are more likely than not to be realized. In making such a determination, we weighed all available positive and negative evidence, including future income projections from the CSL Behring Agreement, and concluded that it is more likely than not that the deferred tax assets will not be realized. Accordingly, we continued to record a full valuation allowance as of December 31, 2020 in the Netherlands. As of December 31, 2020, our valuation allowance amounted to $150.1 million (2019: $109.9 million).

We recorded $16.4 million of deferred tax income in the year ended December 31, 2020 from releasing the full valuation allowance against our net deferred tax assets in the United States as of December 31, 2020. Our U.S. entity has generated taxable income in the fiscal years 2018, 2019 and 2020. Based on the current design of our worldwide operations, we expect to continue to generate taxable income in the U.S. during the foreseeable future and therefore determined that it is more likely than not that our U.S. deferred tax assets will be realized. Our U.S. deferred tax assets as of December 31, 2020 amount to $16.4 million.

Leases

​

On January 1, 2019, we adopted ASC 842, “Leases (Topic 842)”. We adopted the standard using the modified retrospective approach with an effective date as of the beginning of our fiscal year, January 1, 2019, to operating leases that existed on that date. Comparative financial information related to profit and loss and cash flows for the twelve-month period ended December 31, 2018, was not recast under the new standard, and continues to be presented under ASC 840.

We measured the lease liability at the present value of the future lease payments as of January 1, 2019. We used an incremental borrowing rate to discount the lease payments. We derived the discount rate, adjusted for differences such as in the term and payment patterns, from our loan from Hercules Capital, which was refinanced immediately prior to the January 1, 2019 adoption date in December 2018. We valued the right-of-use asset at the amount of the lease liability reduced by the remaining December 31, 2018 balance of lease incentives received. The lease liability is subsequently measured at the present value of the future lease payments as of the reporting date with a corresponding adjustment to the right-to-use asset. Absent a lease modification, we will continue to utilize the January 1, 2019, incremental borrowing rate.

We recognize lease cost on a straight-line basis and present these costs as operating expenses within our Consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss. We present lease payments and landlord incentive payments within cash flows from operations within our Consolidated statements of cash flows.

​

Table of Contents

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

​

ASU 2018-13: Fair Value Measurement

In August 2018, the FASB issued ASU 2018-13, Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820) which modifies the disclosure requirements on fair value measurements. The effective date for the standard is fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019, which for us is January 1, 2020. Early adoption is permitted. The new disclosure requirements for changes in unrealized gains and losses in other comprehensive income for recurring Level 3 measurements, the range and weighted average of significant unobservable inputs and the amended requirements for the narrative description of measurement uncertainty should be applied prospectively for only the most recent interim or annual period presented in the initial fiscal year of adoption. All other amendments should be applied retrospectively. ASU 2018-13 did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements Not Yet Effective

​

None.

​

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

We recognized $0.2 million, $2.3 million, and $3.8 million of collaboration revenue for the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019 and 2018, respectively. The decrease in collaboration revenue in 2020 of $2.1 million compared to 2019 was primarily related to the reduction of activities following the termination of the initial research term under the BMS CLA in May 2019. The decrease in collaboration revenue in 2019 of $1.5 million compared to 2018 resulted from the termination of the initial research term in May 2019 as well as the discontinuation of the S100A1 program in October 2018.

​

Research and development expenses

We expense research and development costs (“R&D”) as incurred. Our R&D expenses generally consist of costs incurred for the development of our target candidates, which include:

Our research and development expenses primarily consist of costs incurred for the research and development of our product candidates, which include:

Our research and development expenses may vary substantially from period to period based on the timing of our research and development activities, including manufacturing campaigns, regulatory submissions, and enrollment of patients in clinical trials. The successful development of our product candidates is highly uncertain. Estimating the nature, timing, or cost of the development of any of our product candidates involves considerable judgement due to numerous risks and uncertainties associated with developing gene therapies, including the uncertainty of:

Table of Contents

A change in the outcome of any of these variables with respect to our product candidates that we may develop, including as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, could mean a significant change in the expenses and timing associated with the development of such product candidate.

Research and development expenses for the year ended December 31, 2020 were $122.4 million, compared to $94.7 million and $74.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively. Other research and development expenses are separately classified in the table below. These are not allocated as they are deployed across multiple projects under development.

Direct research and development expenses

Hemophilia B (AMT-060/061)

In the year ended December 31, 2020, the external costs for our hemophilia B program were primarily related to the execution of our Phase III clinical trial and the preparations related to submissions of marketing authorization applications in the U.S. and EU. We enrolled patients into a six-month lead in phase between January 2018 and September 2019 and dosed a total of 54 patients between January 2019 and March 2020. Our expenses related to etranacogene dezaparvovec were largely unaffected by the COVID-19 pandemic as we completed enrollment prior to the lockdowns in those countries that we enroll patients. We implemented additional measures to minimize any risk, disruption, or delay on follow-up visits, and as of September 2020, we completed almost all follow-up visits according to our initial plan.

In addition, we continue to incur costs for the long-term follow-up of patients in our Phase I/II clinical trial of AMT-060 and our Phase IIb clinical trial of etranacogene dezaparvovec. Our Phase IIb dose-confirmation study was initiated in January 2018 and dosing occurred in July and August 2018. Patients were dosed as part of our Phase I/II clinical trial of AMT-060 in 2015 and 2016. In the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2019, our external costs for our hemophilia B program were primarily related to the planning and execution of our Phase III and Phase IIb clinical trials.

Following the completion of patient enrollment into our HOPE-B trial we also started incurring costs related to preparation of a BLA and MAA and for commercialization of etranacogene dezaparvovec.

Table of Contents

Huntington disease (AMT-130)

​

In the year ended December 31, 2020, our external costs for the development of Huntington’s disease were primarily related to the execution of our Phase I/II clinical trial as well as expenses related to the procedures of the first two patients in June 2020. In the year ended December 31, 2019, our external costs for the development of Huntington’s disease were primarily related to the preparation of our Phase I/II clinical trial. During 2018, the majority of costs were related to the planning and execution of a GLP toxicology study. In addition, we incurred cost related to the filing of our IND in late 2018 and early 2019.

​

Preclinical programs & platform development

​

In the year ended December 31, 2020, we incurred $6.5 million of costs related to related to our preclinical activities for product candidates including Hemophilia A (AMT-180), SCA3 (AMT-150) and Fabry disease (AMT-190), as well as various other research programs and technology innovation projects compared to $5.7 million in 2019 and $2.5 million in 2018.

​

Other research & development expenses

​

​

Table of Contents

Selling, general and administrative expenses

Our general and administrative expenses consist principally of employee, office, consulting, legal and other professional and administrative expenses. We incur expenses associated with operating as a public company, including expenses for personnel, legal, accounting and audit fees, board of directors’ costs, directors' and officers' liability insurance premiums, Nasdaq listing fees, expenses related to investor relations and fees related to business development and maintaining our patent and license portfolio. Our selling costs include employee expenses as well as professional fees related to the preparation of a commercial launch of etranacogene dezaparvovec.

Selling, general and administrative expenses for the year ended December 31, 2020 were $42.6 million, compared to $33.5 million and $25.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively.

​

Other items, net

In 2020, we recognized $1.9 million in income related to payments received from European authorities to subsidize our research and development efforts in the Netherlands compared to $0.7 million in 2019 and $1.0 million in 2018.

In January 2018, we began recognizing other income from the subleasing of a portion of our Amsterdam facility. We present expenses related to such income as other expense.

Other non-operating items, net

We recognize interest income associated with our cash and cash equivalents.

We hold monetary items and enter into transactions in foreign currencies, predominantly in euros and U.S. dollars. We recognize foreign exchange results related to changes in these foreign currencies.

We issued warrants to Hercules in 2013 and to BMS in 2015. We recognize changes in the fair value of these warrants within other non-operating income / (expense).  Following the termination of the BMS warrants on December 1, 2020, we no longer recognize changes in the fair value of these warrants within other non-operating (expense) / income. As of the same date, we recognized a derivative financial liability related to the CoC-payment. Following the exercise of the warrants by Hercules in February 2019 we no longer recognize changes in the fair value of these warrants within other non-operating (expense) / income.

Table of Contents

Our non-operating items, net, for the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019 and 2018 were as follows:

​

We recognized $0.9 million interest income in 2020, $3.5 million in 2019 and $2.7 million in 2018. Our interest income in 2020 decreased by $2.6 million compared to 2019 due to a reduction in market interest rates in 2020 as well as a reduction in cash and cash equivalents. Our interest income in 2019 increased by $0.8 million as a result of an increase in our cash and cash equivalents through our September 2019 $242.7 million public follow-on offering.

​

We recognized $3.8 million interest expense in 2020, $3.8 million in 2019 and $2.2 million in 2018. Our interest income in 2020 was unchanged compared to 2019 as our outstanding debt remained unchanged. Our interest expense in 2019 increased by $1.6 million as we increased our outstanding debt from $20.0 million to $35.0 million on December 6, 2018.

​

In 2020, we recognized a net foreign currency loss of $13.6 million related to our borrowings from Hercules and our cash and cash equivalents as well as loans between entities within the uniQure group, compared to a net loss of $0.3 million in 2019 and a net gain of $4.4 million in 2018.

​

In 2020, we recognized a $0.5 million net gain related to fair value changes of derivative financial instruments, compared to a net loss of $2.5 million in 2019 and a gain of $0.2 million in 2018. The changes in 2020 compared to 2019 result from a $3.1 million gain that we recognized related to fair value changes of the BMS warrants (compared to $2.5 million loss in 2019), which includes an $0.8 million gain that we recognized related to the termination of the BMS warrants in December 2020, and a loss of $2.6 million to recognize the derivative financial liability for the CoC-payment on December 1, 2020.

​

Income tax

​

We recognized $16.4 million of deferred tax income in 2020, $0.0 million in 2019 and income tax expense of $0.2 million in 2018. Deferred tax income recorded in 2020 results from the release of the valuation allowance recorded for our net deferred tax assets by our U.S. entity. We did not record changes in valuation allowances in 2019 and 2018.

​

Table of Contents

We have incurred losses and cumulative negative cash flows from operations since our business was founded by our predecessor entity AMT in 1998. We had a net loss of $125.0 million in 2020, $124.2 million in 2019, and $83.3 million in 2018. As of December 31, 2020, we had an accumulated deficit of $784.7 million.

​

Sources of liquidity

​

From our first institutional venture capital financing in 2006 through 2019, we funded our operations primarily through private placements and public offerings of equity securities, convertible, and other debt securities and to a lesser extent upfront, target designation or similar payments from our collaboration partners.

On September 10, 2019, we completed a follow-on public offering of 4,891,305 ordinary shares at a public offering price of $46.00 per ordinary share, and on September 13, 2019, we completed the sale of an additional 733,695 ordinary shares at a public offering price of $46.00 per ordinary share pursuant to the exercise by the underwriters of the option to purchase additional ordinary shares, resulting in total gross proceeds to us of $258.8 million. The net proceeds from this offering were $242.7 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and other offering expenses payable by us. We deducted $0.6 million of expenses incurred related to this offering from additional paid-in capital in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets and reflected this within the proceeds from public offering of shares, net of issuance costs within the cash flows from financing activities.

On December 6, 2018, we signed an amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement (the “2018 Amended Facility”) with Hercules that both refinanced our then-existing $20.0 million credit facility and provided us with an additional unconditional commitment of $15.0 million as well as a conditional commitment of $15.0 million that expired on June 30, 2020. At signing, we drew down an additional $15.0 million, for a total outstanding amount of $35.0 million.

The 2018 Amended Facility extended the loan’s maturity date until June 1, 2023. The interest-only period was initially extended from November 2018 to January 1, 2021. The interest-only period was further extended to January 1, 2022 as a result of raising more than $90.0 million in equity financing in September 2019. As of December 31, 2020, $35.0 million was outstanding under the 2018 Amended Facility (December 31, 2019: $35.0 million). We are required to repay the facility in equal monthly installments of principal and interest between the end of the interest-only period and the maturity date. The variable interest rate is equal to the greater of (i) 8.85% or (ii) 8.85% plus the prime rate less 5.50%. Under the 2018 Amended Facility, we paid a facility fee equal to 0.50% of the $35,000,000 loan outstanding and will owe a back-end fee of 4.95% of the outstanding debt.

On January 29, 2021 we and Hercules entered into the 2021 Amended Facility. Pursuant to the 2021 Amended Facility, Hercules agreed to the 2021 Term Loan, increasing the aggregate principal amount of the term loan facility from $35.0 million to up to $135.0 million. On January 29, 2021 we drew down $35.0 million of the 2021 Term Loan. We may draw down the remaining $65.0 million under the 2021 Term Loan in a series of one or more advances of not less than $20.0 million each until December 15, 2021. Advances under the 2021 Term Loan bear interest at a rate equal to the greater of (i) 8.25% or (ii) 8.25% plus the prime rate, less 3.25% per annum. The principal balance and all accrued but unpaid interest on advances under the 2021 Term Loan is due on June 1, 2023, which date may be extended by us by up to two twelve-month periods. Advances under the 2021 Term Loan may not be prepaid until six-months after the Closing Date, following which we may prepay all such advances without charge.

On May 7, 2018, we completed a follow-on public offering of 5,175,000 ordinary shares at a public offering price of $28.50 per ordinary share, resulting in gross proceeds to us of $147.5 million. The net proceeds from this offering were $138.4 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and other offering expenses payable by us. We deducted $0.2 million of expenses incurred related to this offering from additional paid-in capital in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet and reflected this within the proceeds from public offering of shares, net of issuance costs with the cash flows from financing activities.

​

Table of Contents

The $450.0 million upfront payment we expect to receive on the closing of the CSL Behring Agreement would fund operations into the second half of 2024 (assuming a full repayment of funds borrowed from Hercules under our term loan facility by 2023). The closing of the transaction is expected to materially impact our profitability and cash flows. We expect to generate positive cash flows in the period of closing and to recognize material revenue related to the CSL Behring Agreement. However, we expect to continue to incur losses and to generate negative cash flows beyond the fiscal year in which we close the transaction. Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial cash flows from successfully commercializing our proprietary product candidates, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, strategic alliances and marketing, distribution, and licensing arrangements.

​

We are subject to the same covenants under our 2018 Amended Facility and 2021 Amended Facility and may become subject to covenants under any future indebtedness that could limit our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures, or declaring dividends, which could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. In addition, our pledge of assets as collateral to secure our obligations under the 2018 Amended Facility and 2021 Amended Facility may limit our ability to obtain debt financing. To the extent we need to finance our cash needs through equity offerings or debt financings, such financing may be subject to unfavorable terms including without limitation, the negotiation and execution of definitive documentation, as well as credit and debt market conditions, and we may not be able to obtain such financing on terms acceptable to us or at all. If financing is not available when needed, including through debt or equity financings, or is available only on unfavorable terms, we may be unable to meet our cash needs. If we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic alliances or marketing, distribution, or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams or product candidates or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financings when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or future commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial conditions, results of operations and cash flows.

​

Net Cash used in operating activities