$TERN Risk Factor changes from 00/03/27/23/2023 to 00/03/20/25/2025

Item 1A. “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Intellectual Property. In November 2021, Hansoh exercised its option to in-license TERN-701 in accordance with the terms of the exclusive option and license agreement. We retain co-exclusive rights under certain know-how licensed to Hansoh and all rights under the patent rights outside of the field of oncology and Hansoh Territory. Pursuant to the terms of the option and license agreement, Hansoh must use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize a Hansoh Product in the Hansoh Territory and Hansoh may not exploit any other product in the Hansoh Territory with the same primary mechanism of action as the Hansoh Products. As consideration for the exclusive option, we received an upfront, refundable payment of $0.8 million, which became non-refundable upon Hansoh’s exercise of its option in November 2021. Under the license, Hansoh has agreed to pay us up to an aggregate of $67.0 million upon the achievement of pre-specified clinical, regulatory and sales milestones with respect to the Hansoh Products. No such milestones have been achieved to date under this option and license agreement. Hansoh must also pay us royalties of a mid-single digit percentage on net sales of all Hansoh Products. The royalty rate is subject to customary reductions, including reductions based on generic competition to the Hansoh Products and royalties paid to any third party under a license to such third party’s rights necessary to commercialize a Hansoh Product. The royalty term will terminate on a Hansoh Product-by-Hansoh Product and country-by-country basis on the later of (i) the expiration date of the last valid claim within the licensed patent rights covering such Hansoh Product in such country, (ii) the loss of regulatory exclusivity for such Hansoh Product in such country and (iii) the tenth anniversary of the first commercial sale of such Hansoh Product in such country. Hansoh will have the first right to prosecute, maintain, defend and enforce the licensed patent rights in the Hansoh Territory. Upon expiration of the option and license agreement, the license under our know-how granted to Hansoh shall be considered fully paid-up, perpetual and co-exclusive. Either we or Hansoh may terminate the option and license agreement if the other party commits a material breach of the agreement and fails to cure that breach within 90 days after written notice is provided, or in the event of insolvency of the other party. Hansoh may terminate the option and license agreement upon 180 days’ prior written notice. Hansoh may also terminate the option and license agreement upon 60 days’ prior written notice if we undergo certain change of control events. If Hansoh terminates the option and license agreement upon such change of control events, we must negotiate with Hansoh the terms of an assignment of our entire right, title and interest in and to TERN-701 and the Hansoh Products, including all intellectual property rights therein, in the Hansoh Territory and Hansoh shall provide us the fair market value of such assignment., or Vintagence, pursuant to which Vintagence assigned to us certain worldwide intellectual property rights and know-how directed to THR-β agonists. In particular, we have been assigned all rights, title and interest in and to a Chinese patent application and any patents or patent applications resulting or derived therefrom in any country, know-how and potentially certain other patents or patent applications relating to our THR-β program. We are also entitled to license the rights granted to us under the assignment agreement to our affiliates, licensees or contractors. We will be responsible for all regulatory activities, including the obtaining of regulatory approvals for a product. In the event Vintagence develops a THR-β agonist not covered by the assigned patent rights, we will have the first right (but no obligation) to negotiate an assignment or license to exclusively develop, manufacture, commercialize or otherwise exploit such agonist worldwide.7 million).4 million to Vintagence which includes a milestone payment of $1.5 million in connection with our IND filing for TERN-501 and a milestone payment of $2.2 million in connection with the initiation of dosing in the Phase 2a DUET trial. However, if we decline to pay the prosecution costs for any assigned patent, Vintagence shall have the right to prosecute such assigned patent. If Vintagence takes over prosecution of such assigned patent, we must assign such assigned patent back to Vintagence. We also have the first right (but no obligation) to enforce the assigned patents and know-how. If we do not take any steps to enforce any of the assigned patents or know-how against any infringing third party, Vintagence has the right to take any actions necessary to abate such infringement. We may terminate the assignment agreement in its entirety or on a covered product-by-covered product and country-by-country basis without cause with 60 days’ prior written notice. Either party may terminate the assignment agreement for the other party’s material breach that remains uncured for 90 days or for the other party’s bankruptcy, insolvency or similar arrangement for the benefit of creditors. If we terminate the assignment agreement without cause or if Vintagence terminates the assignment agreement for our uncured material breach, we must transfer the assigned intellectual property back to Vintagence.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, and comparable regulatory authorities in state and local jurisdictions and in other countries impose substantial and burdensome requirements on companies involved in the clinical development, manufacture, marketing and distribution of drugs such as those we are developing. These agencies and other federal, state and local entities regulate, among other things, the research and development, testing, manufacture, quality control, safety, effectiveness, labeling, storage, record keeping, approval, advertising and promotion, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, sampling and export and import of our product candidates. Any drug candidates that we develop must be approved by the FDA before they may be legally marketed in the United States and by the appropriate foreign regulatory agency before they may be legally marketed in those foreign countries. Generally, our activities in other countries will be subject to regulation that is similar in nature and scope as that imposed in the United States, although there can be important differences. Additionally, some significant aspects of regulation in the European Union, or EU, are addressed in a centralized way, but country-specific regulation remains essential in many respects.S. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational new drug product to humans. The central focus of an IND submission is on the general investigational plan and the protocol(s) for clinical studies. Some preclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. These studies are generally referred to as IND-enabling studies. An IND must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, raises safety concerns or questions about the proposed clinical trial. In such a case, the IND may be placed on clinical hold and the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns or questions before the clinical trial can begin. Submission of an IND therefore may or may not result in FDA authorization to begin a clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A separate submission to the existing IND must be made for each successive clinical trial conducted during product development and for any subsequent protocol amendments. An IRB is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of trial participants and considers such items as whether the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. These studies are designed to test the safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism and distribution of the investigational product in humans, the side effects associated with increasing doses, and, if possible, to gain early evidence on effectiveness. In the case of some products for severe or life-threatening diseases, such as cancer, especially when the product may be too inherently toxic to ethically administer to healthy volunteers, the initial human testing is often conducted in patients. •Phase 2: The product candidate is administered to a limited patient population with a specified disease or condition to evaluate the preliminary efficacy, optimal dosages, dose tolerance and dosing schedule and to identify possible adverse side effects and safety risks. Multiple Phase 2 clinical trials may be conducted to obtain information prior to beginning larger and more expensive Phase 3 clinical trials. •Phase 3: The product candidate is administered to an expanded patient population to further evaluate dosage, to provide statistically significant evidence of clinical efficacy and to further test for safety, generally at multiple geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. These clinical trials are intended to establish the overall risk/benefit ratio of the investigational product and to provide an adequate basis for product approval. Generally, two adequate and well-controlled Phase 3 clinical trials are required by the FDA for approval of an NDA. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication. In certain instances, such as with accelerated approval drugs, FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 trials. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of approval of an NDA. These plans are meant to encourage the enrollment of more diverse patient populations in late-stage clinical trials of FDA-regulated products. In June 2024, as mandated by FDORA, the FDA issued draft guidance outlining the general requirements for DAPs. Unlike most guidance documents issued by the FDA, the DAP guidance when finalized will have the force of law because FDORA specifically dictates that the form and manner for submission of DAPs are specified in FDA guidance. On January 27, 2025, in response to an Executive Order issued by President Trump on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs, the FDA removed this draft guidance from its website. These points may be prior to submission of an IND, at the end of Phase 2, and before an NDA is submitted. Meetings at other times may be requested. These meetings can provide an opportunity for the sponsor to share information about the data gathered to date, for the FDA to provide advice, and for the sponsor and the FDA to reach agreement on the next phase of development. Sponsors typically use the meetings at the end of the Phase 2 trial to discuss Phase 2 clinical results and present plans for the pivotal Phase 3 clinical trials that they believe will support approval of the new drug. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, the manufacturer must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final drug. In addition, 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. In connection with our clinical development program, we may conduct trials at sites outside the United States. When a foreign clinical study is conducted under an IND application, all IND requirements must be met unless waived. When a foreign clinical study is not conducted under an IND application, the sponsor must ensure that the study complies with certain regulatory requirements of the FDA in order to use the study as support for an IND application or application for marketing approval. Specifically, the studies must be conducted in accordance with GCP, including undergoing review and receiving approval by an independent ethics committee, or IEC, and seeking and receiving informed consent from subjects. GCP requirements encompass both ethical and data integrity standards for clinical studies. The FDA’s regulations are intended to help ensure the protection of human subjects enrolled in non-IND foreign clinical studies, as well as the quality and integrity of the resulting data. They further help ensure that non-IND foreign studies are conducted in a manner comparable to that required for IND studies.gov) maintained by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, or NIH. In particular, information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators and other aspects of the clinical trial is made public as part of the registration of the clinical trial. As of December 19, 2024, the FDA had issued six notices of non-compliance, thereby signaling the government’s willingness to begin enforcing these requirements against non-compliant clinical trial sponsors. While these notices of non-compliance did not result in civil monetary penalties, the failure to submit clinical trial information to clinicaltrials.gov is a prohibited act under the FDCA with violations subject to potential civil monetary penalties of up to $10,000 for each day the violation continues. Violations may also result in injunctions and/or criminal prosecution or disqualification from federal grants. With enactment of the FDASIA in 2012, sponsors must also submit pediatric study plans (if required under PREA), before the date on which the sponsor submits the required assessments or investigation and no later than either 60 calendar days after the date of the end-of-phase 2 meeting or such other time as agreed upon between FDA and the sponsor. Those plans must contain an outline of the proposed pediatric study or studies the sponsor plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, any deferral or waiver requests, and other information required by regulation. The sponsor, the FDA, and the FDA’s internal review committee must then review the information submitted, consult with each other, and agree upon a final plan. The FDA or the sponsor may request an amendment to the plan at any time. A deferral may be granted for several reasons, including a finding that the product or therapeutic candidate is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric trials are complete or that additional safety or effectiveness data needs to be collected before the pediatric trials begin. Pursuant to the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act of 2012, or FDASIA, the FDA must send a PREA Non-Compliance letter to sponsors who have failed to submit their pediatric assessments required under PREA, have failed to seek or obtain a deferral or deferral extension or have failed to request approval for a required pediatric formulation. FDASIA further requires the FDA to publicly post the PREA Non-Compliance letter and sponsor’s response. PREA does not apply to any investigational product for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted, although the FDA has taken steps to limit what it considers abuse of this statutory exemption in PREA by announcing that is does not intend to grant any additional orphan drug designations for rare pediatric subpopulations of what is otherwise a common disease. In May 2023, the FDA issued new draft guidance that further describes the pediatric study requirements under PREA. The FDA also maintains a list of diseases that are exempt from PREA requirements due to low prevalence of disease in the pediatric population.S. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and effectiveness of a use of a product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and effectiveness of the investigational drug product to the satisfaction of the FDA. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on NDAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication. The FDA’s regulations state that an application “shall not be considered as filed until all pertinent information and data have been received.” In the event that FDA determines that an application does not satisfy this standard, it will issue a Refuse to File, or RTF, determination to the applicant. The FDA may also request additional information rather than accept an NDA for filing. In this event, the NDA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, guidelines that are currently in effect, the FDA has a goal of ten months from the date of “filing” of a standard NDA for a new molecular entity to review and act on the submission. This review typically takes twelve months from the date the NDA is submitted to FDA because the FDA has approximately two months to make a “filing” decision after it the application is submitted. The actual review time may be significantly longer, depending on the complexity of the review, FDA requests for additional information and the sponsor’s submission of additional information. The FDA seeks to meet these timelines for review of an application but its ability to do so may be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, the ability to hire and retain key personnel and statutory, regulatory and policy changes. For example, during the past decade, the U.S. An advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions. Moreover, the FDA will review a sponsor’s financial relationship with the principal investigators who conducted the clinical trials in support of the NDA. Depending on the level of that compensation and any other financial interest a principal investigator may have in a sponsor, the sponsor may be required to report these relationships to the FDA. The FDA will then evaluate that financial relationship and determine whether it creates a conflict of interest or otherwise affects the interpretation of the trial or the integrity of the data generated at the principal investigator’s clinical trial site. If so, the FDA may exclude data from the clinical trial site in connection with its determination of safety and efficacy of the investigational product. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCPs. With passage of FDORA, Congress clarified FDA’s authority to conduct inspections by expressly permitting inspection of facilities involved in the preparation, conduct, or analysis of clinical and non-clinical studies submitted to FDA as well as other persons holding study records or involved in the study process. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with prescribing information for specific indications. A CRL indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete, and the application will not be approved in its present form. A CRL usually describes the specific deficiencies in the NDA identified by the FDA and may require additional clinical data, such as an additional clinical trial or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, nonclinical studies or manufacturing. If a CRL is issued, the sponsor must resubmit the NDA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may decide that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. For example, the FDA may approve the NDA with a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, to ensure the benefits of the product outweigh its risks. A REMS is a safety strategy to manage a known or potential serious risk associated with a medicine and to enable patients to have continued access to such medicines by managing their safe use, and could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. The FDA also may condition approval on, among other things, changes to proposed labeling or the development of adequate controls and specifications. Once approved, the FDA may withdraw the product approval if compliance with pre- and post-marketing requirements is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the marketplace. The FDA may also require one or more Phase 4 post-market studies and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization, and may limit further marketing of the product based on the results of these post-marketing studies. In addition, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could impact the timeline for regulatory approval or otherwise impact ongoing development programs. Expedited Development and Review Programs The FDA has a number of programs intended to expedite the development or review of products that meet certain criteria. For example, new drugs are eligible for Fast Track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. Fast Track designation applies to the combination of the product candidate and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a Fast Track product candidate has opportunities for more frequent interactions with the review team during product development, and the FDA may consider for review sections of the NDA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA. The designation includes all of the Fast Track program features, as well as more intensive FDA interaction and guidance beginning as early as Phase 1 and an organizational commitment to expedite the development and review of the product candidate, including involvement of senior managers. An NDA for a product candidate is eligible for priority review if the product candidate has the potential to provide safe and effective therapy where no satisfactory alternative therapy exists or a significant improvement in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a disease compared to marketed products. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review. The FDA endeavors to review applications with priority review designations within six months of the filing date as compared to ten months for review of new molecular entity NDAs under its current PDUFA review goals. Drug products intended to treat serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions may be eligible for accelerated approval upon a determination that the product candidate has an effect on 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. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical trials to verify and describe the predicted effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical endpoints, and to begin such a study prior to accelerated approval, and the drug may be subject to accelerated withdrawal procedures if the sponsor fails to conduct the required post-marketing studies or if such studies fail to verify the predicted clinical benefit. In addition, the FDA currently requires pre-approval of promotional materials as a condition for accelerated approval, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product. Moreover, FDORA established expedited procedures authorizing FDA to withdraw an accelerated approval if certain conditions are met, including where a required confirmatory study fails to verify and describe the predicted clinical benefit or where evidence demonstrates the product is not shown to be safe or effective under the conditions of use. The FDA may also use such procedures to withdraw an accelerated approval if a sponsor fails to conduct any required post-approval study of the product with due diligence, including with respect to “conditions specified by the Secretary.” In March 2023, the FDA issued draft guidance that outlines its current thinking and approach to accelerated approval. Although single-arm trials have been commonly used to support accelerated approval, a randomized controlled trial is the preferred approach as it provides a more robust assessment and allows for direct comparisons to an available therapy. Subsequently, in December 2024 and January 2025, the FDA issued additional draft guidances relating to accelerated approval. These guidances describe FDA’s views on what it means to conduct a confirmatory trial with due diligence and how the agency plans to interpret whether such a study needs to be underway at the time of approval. While these guidances are currently only in draft form and will ultimately not be legally binding even when finalized, sponsors typically observe the FDA’s guidance closely to ensure that their investigational products qualify for accelerated approval. Even if a product candidate qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product candidate no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. Post-approval Requirements Any products manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to record-keeping, reporting of adverse experiences, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution and advertising and promotion of the product. 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 fees for any marketed products. Drug manufacturers and their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon us and our third-party manufacturers. The PREVENT Pandemics Act, which was enacted in December 2022, clarifies that foreign drug manufacturing establishments are subject to registration and listing requirements even if a drug or biologic undergoes further manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing at a separate establishment outside the United States prior to being imported or offered for import into the United States. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting requirements upon us and any third-party manufacturers that we may decide to use. Discovery of previously unknown problems with a product or the failure to comply with applicable FDA requirements can have negative consequences, including adverse publicity, judicial or administrative enforcement, warning letters from the FDA, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors and civil or criminal penalties, among others. Newly discovered or developed safety or effectiveness data may require changes to a product’s approved labeling, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications, and also may require the implementation of other risk management measures. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy, purity and potency that are approved by the FDA 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. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in, among other things, adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties. Physicians may prescribe, in their independent professional medical judgment, legally available products for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested by us and approved by the FDA. Physicians may believe that such off-label uses are the best treatment for many patients in varied circumstances. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. Previously, such communications were permitted under FDA guidance but the new legislation explicitly provides protection to sponsors who convey certain information about products in development to payors, including unapproved uses of approved products. 28 In addition, in January 2025, the FDA published final guidance outlining its policies governing the distribution of scientific information to healthcare providers about unapproved uses of approved products. If a company engages in such communications consistent with the guidance’s recommendations, the FDA indicated that it will not treat such communications as evidence of unlawful promotion of a new intended use for the approved product. If a company is found to have promoted off-label uses, it may become subject to adverse public relations and administrative and judicial enforcement by the FDA, the Department of Justice, or the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as state authorities. This could subject a company to a range of penalties that could have a significant commercial impact, including civil and criminal fines and agreements that materially restrict the manner in which a company promotes or distributes drug products. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion of off-label use and has enjoined companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The FDA and other regulatory agencies have also required that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. However, companies may share truthful and not misleading information that is otherwise consistent with a product’s FDA-approved labeling. Both the PDMA and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution. Regulatory Exclusivity Regulatory exclusivity provisions authorized under the FDCA can delay the submission or the approval of certain marketing applications. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the action of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not approve or even accept for review an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, or an NDA submitted under Section 505(b)(2), or 505(b)(2) NDA, submitted by another company for another drug based on the same active moiety, regardless of whether the drug is intended for the same indication as the original innovative drug or for another indication, where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data required for approval. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement to one of the patents listed with the FDA by the innovator NDA holder. This three-year exclusivity covers only the modification for which the drug received approval on the basis of the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs or 505(b)(2) NDAs for drugs containing the active agent for the original indication or condition of use. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA. However, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to any preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. Certain of the incentives turn on the drug first being designated as an orphan drug. To be eligible for designation as an orphan drug (Orphan Drug Designation), the drug must have the potential to treat such rare disease or condition as described above. In addition, the FDA must not have previously approved a drug considered the “same drug,” as defined in the FDA’s orphan drug regulations, for the same orphan-designated indication or the sponsor of the subsequent drug must provide a plausible hypothesis of clinical superiority over the previously approved same drug. Upon receipt of Orphan Drug Designation, the sponsor is eligible for tax credits of up to 25% for qualified clinical trial expenses and waiver of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act application fee. In addition, upon marketing approval, an orphan-designated drug could be eligible for seven years of market exclusivity if no drug considered the same drug was previously approved for the same orphan condition (or if the subsequent drug is demonstrated to be clinically superior to any such previously approved same drug). Such orphan drug exclusivity, if awarded, would only block the approval of any drug considered the same drug for the same orphan indication. Moreover, a subsequent same drug could break an approved drug’s orphan exclusivity through a demonstration of clinical superiority over the previously approved drug. In September 2021, the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Catalyst Pharms, Inc. Becerra, or Catalyst, held that, for the purpose of determining the scope of orphan drug exclusivity, the term “same disease or condition” in the statute means the designated “rare disease or condition” and could not be interpreted by the FDA to mean the “indication or use.” Thus, the court concluded, orphan drug exclusivity applies to the entire designated disease or condition rather than the approved “indication or use.” Although there have been legislative proposals to overrule this decision, they have not been enacted into law. More recently however, on February 14, 2025, a federal district court in Washington, DC fully embraced the reasoning of the Catalyst decision in another decision challenging the scope of orphan drug exclusivity. The implications of this decision, and its impact on the FDA’s implementation of the Orphan Drug Act, are unclear at this point. This six-month exclusivity may be granted if an NDA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond to a written request from the FDA for such data about the active moiety in the product. The data do not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted. If reports of requested pediatric studies are submitted to and accepted by the FDA within the statutory time limits, whatever statutory or regulatory periods of exclusivity or patent protection cover the product are extended by six months. This is not a patent term extension, but it effectively extends the regulatory period during which the FDA cannot approve another application. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we would need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable foreign regulatory authorities before we can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in foreign jurisdictions. The time required to obtain approval in other countries and jurisdictions might differ from and be longer than that required to obtain FDA approval. Regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction may negatively impact the regulatory process in others. Non-clinical studies must be conducted in compliance with the principles of good laboratory practice, or GLP, as set forth in EU Directive 2004/10/EC. In particular, non-clinical studies, both in vitro and in vivo, must be planned, performed, monitored, recorded, reported and archived in accordance with the GLP principles, which define a set of rules and criteria for a quality system for the organizational process and the conditions for non-clinical studies. These GLP standards reflect the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development requirements. If the sponsor of the clinical trial is not established within the EU, it must appoint an EU entity to act as its legal representative. The sponsor must take out a clinical trial insurance policy, and in most EU member states, the sponsor is liable to provide ‘no fault’ compensation to any study subject injured in the clinical trial. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation, or CTR, which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive, or CTD, became applicable on January 31, 2022. Unlike directives, the CTR is directly applicable in all EU member states without the need for member states to further implement it into national law. The CTR notably harmonizes the assessment and supervision processes for clinical trials throughout the EU via a Clinical Trials Information System, which contains a centralized EU portal and database. The CTR allows sponsors to make a single submission to both the competent authority and an ethics committee in each member state, leading to a single decision per member state. The CTA must include, among other things, a copy of the trial protocol and an investigational medicinal product dossier containing information about the manufacture and quality of the medicinal product under investigation. The assessment procedure of the CTA has been harmonized as well, including a joint assessment by all member states concerned, and a separate assessment by each member state with respect to specific requirements related to its own territory, including ethics rules. Each member state’s decision is communicated to the sponsor via the centralized EU portal. Once the CTA is approved, clinical study development may proceed. The extent to which ongoing and new clinical trials will be governed by the CTR varies. For clinical trials whose CTA was made under the Clinical Trials Directive before January 31, 2022, the Clinical Trials Directive will continue to apply on a transitional basis for three years. Additionally, sponsors were able to choose to submit a CTA under either the Clinical Trials Directive or the CTR until January 31, 2023 and, if authorized, those will be governed by the Clinical Trials Directive until January 31, 2025.ema.europa.eu. Other national and EU-wide regulatory requirements may also apply. More concretely, in the EU, medicinal product candidates can only be commercialized after obtaining a marketing authorization, or MA. To obtain regulatory approval of a product candidate in the EU, we must submit a marketing authorization application, or MAA. The process for doing this depends, among other things, on the nature of the medicinal product. The centralized procedure is optional for any products containing a new active substance not yet authorized in the EU, or for products that constitute a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or for which the granting of a MA would be in the interest of public health in the EU; and •“national MAs,” which are issued by the competent authorities of the EU member states, only cover their respective territory, and are available for products not falling within the mandatory scope of the centralized procedure. Where a product has already been authorized for marketing in an EU member state, this national MA can be recognized in another member state through the mutual recognition procedure. If the product has not received a national MA in any member state at the time of application, it can be approved simultaneously in various member states through the decentralized procedure. Under the decentralized procedure an identical dossier is submitted to the competent authorities of each of the member states in which the MA is sought, one of which is selected by the applicant as the reference member state. After these five years, the authorization may be renewed for an unlimited period on the basis of a reevaluation of the risk-benefit balance. The adaptive pathways concept is an approach to medicines approval that aims to improve patients’ access to medicines which have potential to address unmet medical needs. To achieve this goal, several approaches are envisaged: identifying small populations with severe disease where a medicine’s benefit-risk balance could be favorable; making more use of real-world data where appropriate to support clinical trial data; and involving health technology assessment bodies early in development to increase the chance that medicines will be recommended for payment and ultimately covered by national healthcare systems. The adaptive pathways concept applies primarily to treatments in areas of high medical need where it is difficult to collect data via traditional routes and where large clinical trials would unnecessarily expose patients who are unlikely to benefit from the medicine. The approach builds on regulatory processes already in place within the existing EU legal framework. These include: scientific advice; compassionate use; the conditional approval mechanism (for medicines addressing seriously debilitating or life-threatening diseases or rare diseases); patient registries and other pharmacovigilance tools that allow collection of real-life data and development of a risk-management plan for each medicine. PRIME is a voluntary scheme aimed at enhancing the EMA’s support for the development of medicines that target unmet medical needs. It is based on increased interaction and early dialogue with companies developing promising medicines, to optimize their product development plans and speed up their evaluation to help them reach patients earlier. Product developers that benefit from PRIME designation can expect to be eligible for accelerated assessment but this is however not guaranteed. Upon receiving MA, or reference medicinal products qualify for eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity. If granted, the data exclusivity period prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from relying on the preclinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar MA in the EU during a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EU. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from commercializing its product in the EU until 10 years have elapsed from the initial authorization of the reference product in the EU. The overall 10-year market exclusivity period can be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those 10 years, the MA 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. However, there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EU’s regulatory authorities to be a new chemical entity, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity. The EU pharmaceutical legislation is currently undergoing a complete review process, in the context of the Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe initiative, launched by the European Commission in November 2020. The European Commission’s proposal for revision of several legislative instruments related to medicinal products (potentially reducing the duration of regulatory data protection and exclusivity periods for orphan drugs, revising the eligibility for expedited pathways, etc.) was published in April 2023. In April 2024, the European Parliament adopted a position on the proposal requesting several amendments to the package. The proposed revisions remain to be agreed and adopted by the European Parliament and European Council and the proposals may therefore be substantially revised before adoption, which is not anticipated before early 2026. The holder of a MA must establish and maintain a pharmacovigilance system and appoint an individual qualified person for pharmacovigilance who is responsible for oversight of that system. Key obligations include expedited reporting of suspected serious adverse reactions and submission of periodic safety update reports, or PSURs. The regulatory authorities may also impose specific obligations as a condition of the MA. Such risk-minimization measures or post-authorization obligations may include additional safety monitoring, more frequent submission of PSURs, or the conduct of additional clinical trials or post-authorization safety studies. All advertising and promotional activities for the product must be consistent with the approved summary of product characteristics, and therefore all off-label promotion is prohibited. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicines is also prohibited in the EU. Although general requirements for advertising and promotion of medicinal products are established under EU directives, the details are governed by regulations in each member state and can differ from one country to another. These penalties could include delays or refusal to authorize the conduct of clinical trials, suspension of the conduct of clinical trials, rejection of clinical trial data, or refusal to grant MA, product withdrawals and recalls, product seizures, suspension, withdrawal, revocation or variation of the MA, total or partial suspension of production, distribution, manufacturing or clinical trials, operating restrictions, injunctions, suspension of licenses, fines and criminal penalties. The EU and the UK reached an agreement on their new partnership in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which entered into force on May 1, 2021. As of January 1, 2024 on, a new international recognition procedure (IRP) applies which intends to facilitate approval of pharmaceutical products in the UK. The IRP is open to applicants that have already received an authorization for the same product from one of the MHRA’s specified Reference Regulators (RRs). The RRs notably include EMA and regulators in the EEA member states for approvals in the EU centralized procedure and mutual recognition procedure as well as the FDA (for product approvals granted in the U.S.).The RR assessment must have undergone a full and standalone review. RR assessments based on reliance or recognition cannot be used to support an IRP application. A CHMP positive opinion or an MRDC positive end of procedure outcome is an RR authorization for the purposes of IRP.S. Such laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims and transparency laws and regulations with respect to drug pricing and payments or other transfers of value made to physicians and other healthcare professionals. If their operations are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply, they may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, the curtailment or restructuring of operations, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs and individual imprisonment. Decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided are made on a plan-by-plan basis. These third-party payors are increasingly reducing reimbursements for medical products, drugs and services. In addition, the U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have continued implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on coverage and reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls, inflationary rebates and measures, could further limit sales of any product. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for any product or a decision by a third-party payor not to cover a product could reduce physician usage and patient demand for the product and also have a material adverse effect on sales. In the EU, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost effectiveness of a particular therapy to currently available therapies or so-called health technology assessments, in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. Other countries may allow companies to fix their own prices for products, but monitor and control product volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. Efforts to control prices and utilization of pharmaceutical products and medical devices will likely continue as countries attempt to manage healthcare expenditures. Historically, products launched in the EU do not follow price structures of the United States and generally prices tend to be significantly lower.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Federal Supply Schedule program, and other governmental drug pricing programs require participating manufacturers to report certain product and pricing data to the government. Pricing calculations vary among products and programs, are complex, and are often subject to interpretation by manufacturers, governmental or regulatory agencies and the courts, which can change and evolve over time. Manufacturers may be held liable for errors associated with submission of data under these programs, including potential civil monetary penalties per item of falsely reported or misrepresented drug pricing information. Such failure also could be grounds for other sanctions, such as termination from the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. Further, a growing number of states have enacted drug price transparency laws requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to report information to certain state agencies and other parties. Many of these laws provide for civil monetary penalties and other enforcement mechanisms if manufacturers are found to have violated requirements. In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively, the ACA, was signed into law, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers in the United States. By way of example, the ACA increased the minimum level of Medicaid rebates payable by manufacturers of brand name drugs from 15.1% to 23.1%; required collection of rebates for drugs paid by Medicaid managed care organizations; imposed a non-deductible annual fee on pharmaceutical manufacturers or importers who sell certain “branded prescription drugs” to specified federal government programs, implemented a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted, or injected; expanded eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs; creates a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research; and established a Center for Medicare Innovation at CMS to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending, potentially including prescription drug spending. For example, the ACA has been challenged at the U.S. Supreme Court multiple times since its enactment. While in 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. During the first Trump Administration, the Congress and administration sought to overturn the ACA and related measures. Shortly after taking office in January 2025, President Trump revoked numerous executive orders issued by President Biden, including at least two executive orders (EO 14009, Strengthening Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, and EO 14070, Continuing to Strengthen Americans’ Access to Affordable, Quality Health Coverage) which were designed to further implement the ACA. We anticipate similar efforts to undermine the ACA, and the accompanying uncertainty, for the foreseeable future. In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted, including aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which will remain in effect through 2032 absent additional congressional action. Additionally, under the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (Statutory PAYGO), the Administration is required to issue a sequestration order (capped at 4% for Medicare payments) if the PAYGO scorecard shows a net cost at the end of a Congressional session. Although Statutory PAYGO was expected to be triggered at the end of the 2021 Congressional session, subsequent legislation has delayed a Statutory PAYGO sequestration order until after 2024. Moreover, there has recently been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted legislation designed, among other things, to bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for pharmaceutical products. The new legislation has implications for Medicare Part D, which is a program available to individuals who are entitled to Medicare Part A or enrolled in Medicare Part B to give them the option of paying a monthly premium for outpatient prescription drug coverage. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare (beginning in 2026), with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (beginning in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. CMS may negotiate prices for ten high-cost drugs paid for by Medicare Part D starting in 2026, followed by 15 Part D drugs in 2027, 15 Part B or Part D drugs in 2028, and 20 Part B or Part D drugs in 2029 and beyond. This provision applies to drug products that have been approved for at least 9 years and biologics that have been licensed for 13 years, but it does not apply to drugs and biologics that have been approved for a single rare disease or condition. The first cycle of negotiations for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program commenced in the summer of 2023. In August 2024, the HHS published the results of the first Medicare drug price negotiations for ten selected drugs that treat a range of conditions, including diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and rheumatoid arthritis. The prices of these ten drugs will become effective January 1, 2026. On January 17, 2025, CMS announced its selection of 15 additional drugs covered by Part D for the second cycle of negotiations. Thereafter, following the change in administrations, CMS issued a public statement on January 29, 2025, declaring that lowering the cost of prescription drugs is a top priority of the new administration and CMS is committed to considering opportunities to bring greater transparency in the negotiation program. The second cycle of negotiations with participating drug companies will occur during 2025, and any negotiated prices for this second set of drugs will be effective starting January 1, 2027. 36 In addition to the drug price negotiation program, the IRA established inflation rebate programs under Medicare Part B and Part D. These programs require manufacturers to pay rebates to Medicare if they raise their prices for certain Part B and Part D drugs faster than the rate of inflation. In December 2024, with issuance of its 2025 Physician Fee Schedule final regulation, CMS finalized its rules governing the IRA inflation rebate programs. In June 2023, Merck filed a lawsuit against HHS and CMS asserting that, among other things, the IRA’s Drug Price Negotiation Program for Medicare constitutes an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Subsequently, a number of other parties, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, or Chamber, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Astellas, Novo Nordisk, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, also filed lawsuits in various courts with similar constitutional claims against HHS and CMS. HHS has generally won the substantive disputes in these cases, and various federal district court judges have expressed skepticism regarding the merits of the legal arguments being pursued by the pharmaceutical industry. Certain of these cases are now on appeal and, on October 30, 2024, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard oral argument in three of these cases. Litigation involving these and other provisions of the IRA will continue with unpredictable and uncertain results. Furthermore, there has been increased interest by third party payors and governmental authorities in reference pricing systems and publication of discounts and list prices. This may be increasingly true with respect to products approved pursuant to the accelerated approval pathway. State Medicaid programs and other payers are developing strategies and implementing significant coverage barriers, or refusing to cover these products outright, arguing that accelerated approval drugs have insufficient or limited evidence despite meeting the FDA’s standards for accelerated approval. Data Privacy and Security Laws Numerous state, federal and foreign laws govern the collection, dissemination, use, access to, confidentiality and security of health-related information. In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including data breach notification laws, health information privacy laws and federal and state consumer protection laws and regulations (e.g., Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, or FTC Act), govern the collection, use, disclosure and protection of health-related and other personal information, and could apply to our operations or the operations of our partners. The FTC has been particularly focused on the unpermitted processing of health data through its recent enforcement actions and is expanding the types of privacy violations that it interprets to be “unfair” under Section 5 of the FTC Act, The agency is also in the process of developing rules related to commercial surveillance and data security. We will need to account for the FTC’s evolving rules and guidance for proper privacy and data security practices in order to mitigate risk for a potential enforcement action, which may be costly. The FTC’s enforcement priorities (as well as those of other federal regulators) may be impacted by the change in administration and new leadership. These shifts in enforcement priorities may also impact our business. There are also increased restrictions at the federal level relating to transferring sensitive data outside of the United States to certain foreign countries. For example, in 2024, Congress passed H.B. 815, which included the Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2024. This law creates certain restrictions for entities that disclose sensitive data (including potential health data) to countries such as China. Failure to comply with these rules can lead to a potential FTC enforcement action. Additionally, the Department of Justice recently finalized a rule implementing Executive Order 14117, which creates similar restrictions related to the transfer of sensitive US data to countries such as China. These data transfer restrictions (and others that may pass in the future) may create operational challenges and legal risks for our business. 37 At the state level, 19 states to date have enacted omnibus consumer privacy laws, each of which provides special provisions regarding the privacy of health-related information, and each of which provides for civil enforcement, including the levying of fines for violations. Additionally, California’s Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (H. R. 8152)—which provides for both civil enforcement and a private right of action—imposes specific obligations on pharmaceutical companies with respect to the privacy of medical information. The state of Washington also passed the My Health My Data Act in 2023, which specifically regulates health information and includes a private right action (and has inspired copycat legislation by other states). We note, too, that Congress may also consider federal privacy legislation, which may meaningfully impact our compliance obligations. For example, the GDPR imposes strict requirements for processing the personal data of individuals within the EEA. Companies that must comply with the GDPR face increased compliance obligations and risk, including more robust regulatory enforcement of data protection requirements and potential fines for noncompliance of up to €20 million or 4% of the annual global revenues of the noncompliant company, whichever is greater. Further, from January 1, 2021, companies have had to comply with the GDPR and also the UK GDPR, which, together with the amended UK Data Protection Act 2018, retains the GDPR in UK national law. The UK GDPR mirrors the fines under the GDPR, i.e., fines up to the greater of €20 million (£17.5 million) or 4% of global turnover. Privacy and security laws, regulations, and other obligations are constantly evolving, may conflict with each other to complicate compliance efforts, and can result in investigations, proceedings, or actions that lead to significant civil and/or criminal penalties and restrictions on data processing. The GDPR prohibits the transfer of personal data from the European Economic Area, or EEA, to countries outside of the EEA unless made to a country deemed to have adequate data privacy laws by the European Commission or a data transfer mechanism has been put in place. The EU-US Privacy Shield was such a transfer mechanism put in place by the EU and the United States, but the Privacy Shield was invalidated for international transfers of personal data in July 2020 by the Court of Justice of the EU, or CJEU.S. Data Privacy Framework (DPF), which is intended to be a replacement for the EU-US Privacy Shield. The European Commission adopted an adequacy decision to permit data transfers from the EEA to the United States going forward. This development permits data transfers at this point under this framework and more broadly has made international data transfers more straightforward, but these provisions are being challenged in court. The recent election in the United States and the new administration may also impact whether the DPF remains an adequate data transfer framework. The continuing uncertainty around this issue may further impact our business operations in the EEA. There is also uncertainty about other data transfer mechanisms. The SCCs require parties that rely upon that legal mechanism to comply with additional obligations, such as conducting transfer impact assessments to determine whether additional security measures are necessary to protect the transferred personal information. The competent authorities and courts in a number of EU Member States increasingly scrutinize and question the GDPR compliance of processing of personal data by US-based entities or entities with links to US-based entities, independently of whether personal data is actually transferred outside the EEA. In June 2021, the CJEU issued a ruling that expanded the scope of the “one stop shop” under the GDPR. According to the ruling, the competent authorities of EU Member States may, under certain strict conditions, bring claims to their national courts against a company for breaches of the GDPR, including unlawful cross-border processing activities, even such company does not have an establishment in the EU member state in question and the competent authority bringing the claim is not the lead supervisory authority. 13 of our employees hold doctorate degrees (Ph.D., M.D. or Pharm.D.). We consider our relationship with our employees to be good. We have implemented and continue to develop many programs designed to achieve these priorities. Our principal executive offices are located at 1065 East Hillsdale Boulevard, Suite 100, Foster City, California 94404, and our telephone number is (650) 525-5535.ternspharma.com.

These include our annual reports on Form 10-K, our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, and our current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act. We make this information available on or through our website free of charge as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file the information with, or furnish it to, the SEC. References to our website address do not constitute incorporation by reference of the information contained on the website, and the information contained on the website is not part of this document or any other document that we file with or furnish to the SEC.sec.gov. Risk Factors.

You should carefully consider the risks described below, as well as the other information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our consolidated financial statements and the related notes and Item 7. “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” before deciding whether to invest in our common stock. The occurrence of any of the events or developments described below could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In such an event, the market price of our common stock could decline and you may lose all or part of your investment. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial may also impair our business operations and the market value of our common stock. You should consider all of the risk factors described when evaluating our business. We have incurred significant losses since our inception, and we anticipate that we will continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, which, together with our limited operating history, makes it difficult to assess our future viability. Biopharmaceutical product development is a highly speculative undertaking and involves a substantial degree of risk. We have no products approved for commercial sale and have not generated any revenue from sales of our product candidates and have incurred losses in each year since our inception in December 2016. We have only a limited operating history upon which you can evaluate our business and prospects. In addition, we have not yet demonstrated an ability to successfully overcome many of the risks and uncertainties frequently encountered by companies in new and rapidly evolving fields, particularly in the pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology industry. We expect that it will be a number of years, if ever, before we have a product candidate ready for commercialization. Our net loss attributable to common stockholders for the years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023 was approximately $88.2 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2024, we had an accumulated deficit of $421. Substantially all of our losses have resulted from expenses incurred in connection with our research and development programs and from general and administrative costs associated with our operations. We expect to continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future, and we anticipate these losses will increase as we continue to develop our product candidates, conduct clinical trials and pursue research and development activities. Even if we achieve profitability in the future, we may not be able to sustain profitability in subsequent periods. Our prior losses, combined with expected future losses, have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital. Failure to obtain this necessary capital when needed on acceptable terms, or at all, could force us to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development programs, commercialization efforts or other operations. Our product candidates will require additional clinical development, and we intend to conduct additional research and development activities to discover and develop new product candidates, including conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, all of which will require substantial additional funds. We will continue to expend significant resources for the foreseeable future in connection with these activities. These expenditures will include costs associated with conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and manufacturing and supply, as well as marketing and selling any drugs approved for sale. In addition, other unanticipated costs may arise. Because the outcome of any preclinical study or clinical trial is highly uncertain, we cannot reasonably estimate the actual amounts necessary to successfully complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates or any future product candidates. We expect our existing capital resources will fund our planned operating expenses into 2028. However, our operating plans may change as a result of many factors currently unknown to us, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned through public or private equity offerings or debt financings or other sources, such as strategic collaborations. Such financing may result in dilution to our stockholders, and may also result in imposition of burdensome debt covenants and repayment obligations, or other restrictions that may affect our business. In addition, we may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans. We do not expect to realize revenue from sales of products or royalties from licensed products in the foreseeable future, if at all, and unless and until our product candidates are clinically tested, approved for commercialization and successfully marketed. To date, we have primarily financed our operations through the sale of equity and debt securities. Our ability to raise additional funds will depend on financial, economic and other factors, many of which are beyond our control. Additional funds may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we raise additional funds by issuing equity securities, our stockholders will suffer dilution and the terms of any financing may adversely affect the rights of our stockholders. In addition, as a condition to providing additional funds to us, future investors may demand, and may be granted, rights superior to those of existing stockholders or the holders of any future security we may issue. Debt financing, if available, is likely to involve restrictive covenants limiting our flexibility in conducting future business activities, and, in the event of insolvency, debt holders would be repaid before holders of our equity securities received any distribution of our corporate assets. We may expend our limited resources on candidates or indications that do not yield a successful product and fail to capitalize on product candidates or indications that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success. Our programs are focused on developing a portfolio of small-molecule product candidates for the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia, or CML, and obesity. However, due to the significant resources required for the development of our product candidates, we must focus on specific diseases and disease pathways and decide which product candidates to pursue and the amount of resources to allocate to each product candidate. Our business is heavily dependent on the successful development, regulatory approval and commercialization of our current and future product candidates. We have no drugs approved for sale, and our most advanced development programs are in early stages of clinical development. The success of our business, including our ability to finance our company and generate revenue in the future, will primarily depend on the successful development, regulatory approval and commercialization of our product candidates and, in particular, progressing our most advanced development programs. Given our stage of development, it may be many years, if we succeed at all, before we have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of a product candidate sufficient to warrant approval for commercialization. We cannot be certain that our product candidates will receive regulatory approval or be successfully commercialized even if we receive regulatory approval.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, or similar approval filings to a comparable foreign regulatory authority, for any product candidate. An NDA or other relevant regulatory filing must include extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to establish that the product candidate is safe and effective for each desired indication. The NDA or other relevant regulatory filing must also include significant information regarding the chemistry, manufacturing and controls for the product. We cannot be certain that our current or future product candidates will be successful in clinical trials or receive regulatory approval. Further, even if they are successful in clinical trials, our current or future product candidates may not receive regulatory approval. If we do not receive regulatory approvals for current or future product candidates, we may not be able to continue our operations. Even if we successfully obtain regulatory approval to market a product candidate, our revenue will depend, in part, upon the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval and have commercial rights, as well as the availability of competitive products, whether there is sufficient third-party reimbursement and adoption by physicians. While the scope of regulatory approval generally is similar in other countries, in order to obtain separate regulatory approval in other countries, we must comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of such countries regarding safety and efficacy. Other countries also have their own regulations governing, among other things, clinical trials and commercial sales, as well as pricing and distribution of drugs, and we may be required to expend significant resources to obtain regulatory approval and to comply with ongoing regulations in these jurisdictions. Even if regulatory approvals are obtained, we may never be able to successfully commercialize any of our product candidates. Accordingly, we cannot provide assurances that we will be able to generate sufficient revenue through the sale of our product candidates or any future product candidates to continue our business or achieve profitability. If development of our product candidates is unsuccessful or delayed, we may be unable to obtain required regulatory approvals and we may be unable to commercialize our product candidates on a timely basis, if at all. Failure or delay can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. Success in nonclinical testing and early clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical trials will be successful. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical industry, including biotechnology companies, have suffered significant setbacks in clinical trials, even after promising results in earlier nonclinical or clinical studies. These setbacks have been caused by, among other things, nonclinical findings made while clinical studies were underway and safety or efficacy observations made in clinical studies, including previously unreported AEs. The results of preclinical, nonclinical and early clinical studies of our product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. Likewise, interim or preliminary results from a clinical trial may not be predictive of final results. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits despite having progressed through preclinical and initial clinical trials. Notwithstanding any potential promising results in earlier studies, we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks. Even if our clinical trials are completed, the results may not be sufficient to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates. Such authorities may suspend or terminate a clinical trial due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a drug, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. Under certain circumstances, we may be required to report some of these relationships to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may conclude that a financial relationship between us and a principal investigator has created a conflict of interest or otherwise affected the interpretation of the trial. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may therefore question the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our product candidate development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence drug sales and generate revenues. Any of these occurrences may significantly harm our business, financial condition and prospects. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates. These plans are meant to encourage the enrollment of more diverse patient populations in late-stage clinical trials of FDA-regulated products. In June 2024, as mandated by FDORA, the FDA issued draft guidance outlining the general requirements for DAPs. Unlike most guidance documents issued by the FDA, the DAP guidance when finalized will have the force of law because FDORA specifically dictates that the form and manner for submission of DAPs are specified in FDA guidance. On January 27, 2025, in response to an Executive Order issued by President Trump on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs, the FDA removed this draft guidance from its website. The implications of this action are not yet known. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation, or CTR, which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive, became applicable on January 31, 2022. While the Clinical Trials Directive required a separate clinical trial application, or CTA, to be submitted in each member state, to both the competent national health authority and an independent ethics committee, the CTR introduces a centralized process and only requires the submission of a single application to all member states concerned. The CTR allows sponsors to make a single submission to both the competent authority and an ethics committee in each member state, leading to a single decision per member state. The assessment procedure of the CTA has been harmonized as well, including a joint assessment by all member states concerned, and a separate assessment by each member state with respect to specific requirements related to its own territory, including ethics rules. Each member state’s decision is communicated to the sponsor via the centralized EU portal. Once the CTA is approved, clinical study development may proceed. The CTR foresees a three-year transition period. The extent to which ongoing and new clinical trials will be governed by the CTR varies. For clinical trials whose CTA was made under the Clinical Trials Directive before January 31, 2022, the Clinical Trials Directive will continue to apply on a transitional basis for three years. Additionally, sponsors were able to choose to submit a CTA under either the Clinical Trials Directive or the CTR until January 31, 2023 and, if authorized, those will be governed by the Clinical Trials Directive until January 31, 2025. Thereafter, all ongoing trials are subject to the provisions of the CTR. Patient enrollment, a significant factor in the timing of clinical trials, is affected by many factors including the size and nature of the patient population, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, the eligibility criteria for the clinical trial, the design of the clinical trial, competing clinical trials and clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions as to the potential advantages of the product candidate being studied in relation to other available therapies, including any new drugs that may be approved for the indications we are investigating. We may experience difficulties in patient enrollment in our clinical trials for a variety of reasons. Many of our competitors have significantly greater resources than we do, and we may not be able to successfully compete. Numerous companies are engaged in the development, patenting, manufacturing and marketing of healthcare products competitive with those that we are developing. We face competition from a number of sources, such as pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, generic drug companies and academic and research institutions., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., Pfizer Inc., Shenzhen TargetRx Inc., Sun Pharma Industries Ltd., and Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Companies that are participating in the development of obesity treatments include, but are not limited to, Abbvie Inc., Amgen, Inc., Ascletis Pharma, Inc., AstraZeneca PLC, Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, Eli Lilly and Co., Gilead Sciences, Inc., Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd., Kailera Therapeutics, Merck & Co., LG Chem, Ltd., Novo Nordisk A/S, Pfizer Inc., Regor Therapeutics Group, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roche Holding AG, Shionogi & Co., Ltd., Amgen, Inc., Biomed Industries Inc., D&D Pharmatech, Eli Lilly and Co., Kailera Therapeutics, MBX Biosciences, Inc., Pfizer, Inc., Roche Holding AG, Sciwind Biosciences Co., Viking Therapeutics, Inc. Zealand Pharma A/S and Zhejiang Doer Biosciences Co., Ltd., Aardvark Therapeutics, Inc., Akero Therapeutics, Inc., Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Axcella Health, Inc., Carmot Therapeutics, Inc., Cirius Therapeutics, Inc., CohBar, Inc., Coherus Biosciences Inc., Corcept Therapeutics, Inc., Currax Pharmaceuticals LLC, CymaBay Therapeutics, Inc., CytoDyne Inc., Diasome Pharmaceuticals, Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., Fusion Pharma, LLC, Galectin Therapeutics Inc., Galmed Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Gila Therapeutics, Inc., Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., IL-YANG Pharm. Co. Ltd., Inhibikase Therapeutics, Inc., Inventiva Pharma SA, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., MediciNova, Inc., NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., Norgine B.V., NorthSea Therapeutics, Inc., Pliant Therapeutics, Inc., Poxel SA, Saniona AB, Sagimet Biosciences, Inc., T3D Therapeutics, Inc., Vivus, Inc., and Zydus Cadila Healthcare. Some of the companies also have a broad range of other product offerings, large direct sales forces and long-term customer relationships with our target physicians, which could inhibit our market penetration efforts. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology 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. Furthermore, currently approved products could be discovered to have application for the intended indication of our product candidates, which could give such products significant regulatory and market timing advantages over any of our product candidates. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other foreign regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours and may obtain orphan product exclusivity from the FDA for indications our product candidates are targeting, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. In addition, our ability to compete may be affected in many cases by insurers or other third-party payors seeking to encourage the use of generic products. There are generic products currently on the market for certain of the indications that we are pursuing, and additional products are expected to become available on a generic basis over the coming years. If our product candidates are approved, we expect that they will be priced at a significant premium over competitive generic products. Results of our clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or unexpected characteristics. Treatment-related side effects could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. In addition, these side effects may not be appropriately recognized or managed by the treating medical staff. Furthermore, we may be required to expend time and incur costs to train medical personnel using our product candidates to understand the side effect profiles for our clinical trials and upon any commercialization of any of our product candidates. Inadequate training in recognizing or managing the potential side effects of our product candidates could result in patient injury or death. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly. In addition, if any of our product candidates receives marketing approval, and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by such drugs, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including: •we may be forced to suspend marketing of that product candidate, or decide to remove the product candidate from the marketplace; •regulatory authorities may withdraw or change their approvals of that product candidate; •regulatory authorities may require additional warnings on the label or limit access of that product candidate to selective specialized centers with additional safety reporting and with requirements that patients be geographically close to these centers for all or part of their treatment; •we may be required to send “dear doctor” letters to treatment providers or create a medication guide outlining the risks of the product candidate for patients, or to conduct post-marketing studies; •we may be required to change the way the product candidate is administered; •we could be subject to fines, injunctions, or the imposition of criminal or civil penalties, or be sued and held liable for harm caused to subjects or patients; and •the product candidate may become less competitive, and our reputation may suffer. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. As a result, the interim, top-line or preliminary results that we report may differ from future results of the same studies, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Interim, top-line and preliminary data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. As a result, such data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. From time to time, we may also disclose interim data from our clinical trials. Interim, top-line or preliminary data from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available. Adverse differences between interim, top-line or preliminary data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects. In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical trial is based on what is typically extensive information, and you or others may not agree with what we determine is the material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure, and any information we determine not to disclose may ultimately be deemed significant with respect to future decisions, conclusions, views, activities or otherwise regarding a particular product candidate or our business. If the interim, top-line or preliminary data that we report differ from actual results, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for and commercialize, our product candidates may be harmed, which could harm our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition. The denial or delay of any such approval would delay commercialization of our product candidates and adversely impact our ability to generate revenue, our business and our results of operations. Neither we nor any future collaborator is permitted to market any of our product candidates in the United States until we receive regulatory approval of an NDA from the FDA. Prior to obtaining approval to commercialize a product candidate in the United States or abroad, we or our collaborators must demonstrate with substantial evidence from well-controlled clinical trials, and to the satisfaction of the FDA or other foreign regulatory authorities, that such product candidates are safe and effective for their intended uses. The number of nonclinical studies and clinical trials that will be required for regulatory approval varies depending on the product candidate, the disease or condition that the product candidate is designed to address, and the regulations applicable to any particular product candidate. Even if we believe the nonclinical or clinical data for our product candidates are promising, such data may not be sufficient to support approval by the FDA and other regulatory authorities. Administering product candidates to humans may produce undesirable side effects, which could interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and result in the FDA or other regulatory authorities denying approval of a product candidate for any or all indications. The FDA or other regulatory authorities may also require us to conduct additional studies or trials for our product candidates either prior to or post-approval, such as additional clinical pharmacology studies or safety or efficacy studies or trials, or it may object to elements of our clinical development program such as the primary endpoints or the number of subjects in our clinical trials. The lengthy development and approval process as well as the unpredictability of future clinical trial results may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval to market our product candidates, which would significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Under certain circumstances, we may be required to report some of these relationships to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may therefore question the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized. Further, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, an NDA or supplement to an NDA for certain biological products must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the biological product in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective, unless the sponsor receives a deferral or waiver from the FDA. A deferral may be granted for several reasons, including a finding that the product or therapeutic candidate is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric trials are complete or that additional safety or effectiveness data needs to be collected before the pediatric trials begin. The applicable legislation in the EU also requires sponsors to either conduct clinical trials in a pediatric population in accordance with a Pediatric Investigation Plan approved by the Pediatric Committee of the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, or to obtain a waiver or deferral from the conduct of these studies by this Committee. For any of our product candidates for which we are seeking regulatory approval in the United States or the EU, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to obtain a waiver or alternatively complete any required studies and other requirements in a timely manner, or at all, which could result in associated reputational harm and subject us to enforcement action. Further, the FDA may determine that we must provide additional evidence and data before approving an NDA for our candidate products. For example, the FDA reviews an application to determine whether there is “substantial evidence” to support a finding of effectiveness for the proposed product for its intended use(s), The FDA has interpreted this evidentiary standard to generally require at least two adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish effectiveness of a new product. Under certain circumstances, however, the FDA has indicated that a single trial with certain characteristics and additional confirmatory evidence may satisfy this standard. The FDA issued draft guidance in September 2023 that outlines considerations for relying on confirmatory evidence in lieu of a second clinical trial to demonstrate effectiveness. In the event that we submit an NDA on the basis of one clinical trial and confirmatory evidence, the FDA could determine that such information is not sufficient to support approval of the application and the agency could require us to conduct an additional trial in support of the NDA. The FDA or the applicable foreign regulatory authority also may approve a product candidate for a more limited indication or a narrower patient population than we originally requested, and the FDA or applicable foreign regulatory authority may not approve the labeling that we believe is necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of a product candidate. Any delay in obtaining, or inability to obtain, applicable regulatory approval, or the failure to receive marketing authorization with a label that allows us to market the product candidate as we desire, would delay, prevent or otherwise limit commercialization of that product candidate and would materially adversely impact our business and prospects. We are conducting clinical trials at sites outside the United States. The FDA may not accept data from trials conducted in such locations, and the conduct of trials outside the United States could subject us to additional delays and expense. We are conducting one or more clinical trials with one or more trial sites that are located outside the United States. For example, our phase 1 clinical trial design of TERN-701 for the treatment of CML includes sites from the United States, Europe and other countries. The acceptance by the FDA or other regulatory authorities of study data from clinical trials conducted outside their jurisdiction may be subject to certain conditions or may not be accepted at all. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the sole basis for marketing approval in the United States, the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (i) the data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice; (ii) the trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence and pursuant to GCP regulations; and (iii) the data may be considered valid without the need for an on-site inspection by the FDA, or if the FDA considers such inspection to be necessary, the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means. In addition, even where the foreign study data are not intended to serve as the sole basis for approval, the FDA will not accept the data as support for an application for marketing approval unless the study is well-designed and well-conducted in accordance with GCP requirements and the FDA is able to validate the data from the study through an onsite inspection if deemed necessary. Many foreign regulatory authorities have similar approval requirements. In addition, such foreign trials would be subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted. There can be no assurance that the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority will accept data from trials conducted outside of the United States or the applicable jurisdiction. Conducting clinical trials outside the United States also exposes us to additional risks, including risks associated with: •additional foreign regulatory requirements; •foreign exchange fluctuations; •compliance with foreign manufacturing, customs, shipment and storage requirements; •cultural differences in medical practice and clinical research; •diminished protection of intellectual property in some countries; and •interruptions or delays in our trials resulting from geopolitical events, such as war or terrorism. 52 We may seek Fast Track designation for some or all of our other product candidates, including combination therapy candidates. We may not receive such designation, and even for those product candidates for which we do, it may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process, and will not increase the likelihood that product candidates will receive marketing approval. We may seek Fast Track designation for some of our other product candidates, including combination therapy candidates. If a drug is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition or disease, and nonclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address an unmet medical need, the drug may qualify for FDA Fast Track designation, for which sponsors must apply. The sponsor of a Fast Track product candidate has opportunities for more frequent interactions with the applicable FDA review team during product development and, once an NDA is submitted, the product candidate may be eligible for priority review. A Fast Track product candidate may also be eligible for rolling review, where the FDA may consider for review sections of the NDA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant this designation. Thus, even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for this designation, the FDA may decide not to grant it. Moreover, even if we do receive Fast Track designation, we or our collaborators may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. In addition, the FDA may withdraw Fast Track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. A Breakthrough Therapy is defined as a drug that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For drug candidates that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development. Breakthrough Therapy designation also provides the sponsor with the same benefits as Fast Track designation, including potential for rolling review of an NDA submission. Accordingly, even if we believe one of our product candidates meets the criteria for designation as a Breakthrough Therapy, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. In any event, the receipt of a Breakthrough Therapy designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to drug candidates considered for approval under non-expedited FDA review procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates qualify as Breakthrough Therapies, the FDA may later decide that the single-agent or combination therapy no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. PRIME is a voluntary program aimed at enhancing the EMA’s role to reinforce scientific and regulatory support in order to optimize development and enable accelerated assessment of new medicines that are of major public health interest with the potential to address unmet medical needs. To be accepted for PRIME, a product candidate must meet the eligibility criteria in respect of its major public health interest and therapeutic innovation based on information that is capable of substantiating the claims. The benefits of a PRIME designation include the appointment of a Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use rapporteur to provide continued support and help to build knowledge ahead of a marketing authorization application, early dialogue and scientific advice at key development milestones, and the potential to qualify products for accelerated review, meaning reduction in the review time for an opinion on approvability to be issued earlier in the application process. PRIME enables an applicant to request parallel EMA scientific advice and health technology assessment advice to facilitate timely market access. Even if we receive PRIME designation for any of our product candidates, the designation may not result in a materially faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional EMA procedures. Further, obtaining PRIME designation does not assure or increase the likelihood of EMA’s grant of a marketing authorization. For example, even if the FDA grants marketing approval of a product candidate, comparable regulatory authorities in foreign jurisdictions must also approve the manufacturing, marketing and promotion of the product candidate in those countries. Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from, and greater than, those in the United States, including additional preclinical studies or clinical trials as clinical studies conducted in one jurisdiction may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our drugs is also subject to approval. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets and/or receive applicable marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our product candidates will be harmed. The UK is no longer part of the European Single Market and EU Customs Union. As of January 1, 2025, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, is responsible for approving all medicinal products destined for the United Kingdom market (i.e., Great Britain and Northern Ireland). At the same time, a new international recognition procedure (IRP) will apply, which intends to facilitate approval of pharmaceutical products in the UK. The IRP is open to applicants that have already received an authorization for the same product from one of the MHRA’s specified Reference Regulators (RRs). The RRs notably include EMA and regulators in the EU/European Economic Area (EEA) member states for approvals in the EU centralized procedure and mutual recognition procedure as well as the FDA (for product approvals granted in the U.S.). However, the concrete functioning of the IRP is currently unclear. Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, any marketing approvals may force us or our collaborators to restrict or delay efforts to seek regulatory approval in the UK for our product candidates, which could significantly and materially harm our business. 54 In addition, foreign regulatory authorities may change their approval policies and new regulations may be enacted. For instance, the EU pharmaceutical legislation is currently undergoing a complete review process, in the context of the Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe initiative, launched by the European Commission in November 2020. The European Commission’s proposal for revision of several legislative instruments related to medicinal products (potentially reducing the duration of regulatory data protection and exclusivity periods for orphan drugs, revising the eligibility for expedited pathways, etc.) was published in April 2023. In April 2024, the European Parliament adopted a position on the proposal requesting several amendments to the package. The proposed revisions remain to be agreed and adopted by the European Parliament and European Council and the proposals may therefore be substantially revised before adoption, which is not anticipated before early 2026. The revisions may, however, have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry and our business in the long term. We expect that we will be subject to additional risks in commercializing any of our product candidates that receive marketing approval outside the United States, including tariffs, trade barriers and regulatory requirements; economic weakness, including inflation, or political instability in particular foreign economies and markets; compliance with tax, employment, immigration and labor laws for employees living or traveling abroad; foreign currency fluctuations, which could result in increased operating expenses and reduced revenue, and other obligations incident to doing business in another country; and workforce uncertainty in countries where labor unrest is more common than in the United States. Additionally, our product candidates, if approved, could be subject to labeling and other restrictions on marketing or withdrawal from the market, and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or if we experience unanticipated problems with our product candidates, when and if any of them are approved. The FDA may also require us to adopt a REMS, and foreign regulatory authorities may require us to adopt similar risk management measures, to ensure that the benefits of treatment with such product candidate outweigh the risks for each potential patient, which may include, among other things, a communication plan to health care practitioners, patient education, extensive patient monitoring or distribution systems and processes that are highly controlled, restrictive and more costly than what is typical for the industry. We or our collaborators may also be required to adopt a REMS or engage in similar actions, such as patient education, certification of health care professionals or specific monitoring, if we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by any drug that we develop alone or with collaborators. The FDA and foreign regulatory authorities also require submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as continued compliance with cGMP and similar foreign requirements and good clinical practice, or GCPs, for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. Any failure to comply with ongoing regulatory requirements may significantly and adversely affect our ability to commercialize and generate revenue from our drugs. If regulatory sanctions are applied or if regulatory approval is withdrawn, the value of our company and our operating results will be adversely affected. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may be subject to enforcement action and we may not achieve or sustain profitability. In addition, we could be adversely affected by several significant administrative law cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2024. In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, for example, the court overruled Chevron U.S.A., Inc. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which for 40 years required federal courts to defer to permissible agency interpretations of statutes that are silent or ambiguous on a particular topic. The U.S. Supreme Court stripped federal agencies of this presumptive deference and held that courts must exercise their independent judgment when deciding whether an agency such as the FDA acted within its statutory authority under the Administrative Procedure Act, or the APA. Additionally, in Corner Post, Inc. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the court held that actions to challenge a federal regulation under the APA can be initiated within six years of the date of injury to the plaintiff, rather than the date the rule is finalized. The decision appears to give prospective plaintiffs a personal statute of limitations to challenge longstanding agency regulations. Another decision, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, overturned regulatory agencies’ ability to impose civil penalties in administrative proceedings. These decisions could introduce additional uncertainty into the regulatory process and may result in additional legal challenges to actions taken by federal regulatory agencies, including the FDA and CMS, that we rely on. In addition to potential changes to regulations as a result of legal challenges, these decisions may result in increased regulatory uncertainty and delays and other impacts, any of which could adversely impact our business and operations. Further, our ability to develop and market new drug products may be impacted by litigation challenging the FDA’s approval of another company’s drug product.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas invalidated the approval by the FDA of mifepristone, a drug product which was originally approved in 2000 and whose distribution is governed by various measures adopted under a REMS. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit declined to order the removal of mifepristone from the market but did hold that plaintiffs were likely to prevail in their claim that changes allowing for expanded access of mifepristone, which the FDA authorized in 2016 and 2021, were arbitrary and capricious. In June 2024, the Supreme Court reversed that decision after unanimously finding that the plaintiffs (anti-abortion doctors and organizations) did not have standing to bring this legal action against the FDA. On October 11, 2024, the Attorneys General of three states (Missouri, Idaho and Kansas) filed an amended complaint in the district court in Texas challenging FDA’s actions. On January 16, 2025, the district court agreed to allow these states to file an amended complaint and continue to pursue this challenge. Depending on the outcome of this litigation, our ability to develop new drug product candidates and to maintain approval of existing drug products could be delayed, undermined or subject to protracted litigation. 56 Any regulatory approval to market our products will be limited by indication. If we fail to comply or are found to be in violation of FDA regulations restricting the promotion of our products for unapproved uses, we could be subject to criminal penalties, substantial fines or other sanctions and damage awards. The regulations relating to the promotion of products for unapproved uses are complex and subject to substantial interpretation by the FDA, EMA, MHRA and other government agencies. In September 2021, the FDA published final regulations which describe the types of evidence that the agency will consider in determining the intended use of a drug product. We intend to implement compliance and training programs designed to ensure that our sales and marketing practices comply with applicable regulations. Notwithstanding these programs, the FDA or other government agencies may allege or find that our practices constitute prohibited promotion of our products for unapproved uses. We also cannot be sure that our employees will comply with company policies and applicable regulations regarding the promotion of products for unapproved uses. Notwithstanding the regulatory restrictions on off-label promotion, the FDA and other regulatory authorities allow companies to engage in truthful, non-misleading, and non-promotional scientific communications concerning their products in certain circumstances. For example, in January 2025, the FDA published final guidance outlining its policies governing the distribution of scientific information to healthcare providers about unapproved uses of approved products. If a company engages in such communications consistent with the guidance’s recommendations, the FDA indicated that it will not treat such communications as evidence of unlawful promotion of a new intended use for the approved product. In addition, under some relatively recent guidance from the FDA and the Pre-Approval Information Exchange Act, or PIE Act, signed into law as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, companies may also promote information that is consistent with the prescribing information and proactively speak to formulary committee members of payors regarding data for an unapproved drug or unapproved uses of an approved drug. We may engage in these discussions and communicate with healthcare providers, payors and other constituencies in compliance with all applicable laws, regulatory guidance and industry best practices. We will need to carefully navigate the FDA’s various regulations, guidance and policies, along with recently enacted legislation, to ensure compliance with restrictions governing promotion of our products.S. Attorneys’ Offices, the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, the FDA, the Federal Trade Commission, or the FTC, and various state Attorneys General offices. These investigations have alleged violations of various federal and state laws and regulations, including claims asserting antitrust violations, violations of the FDCA, the False Claims Act, the Prescription Drug Marketing Act and anti-kickback laws and other alleged violations in connection with the promotion of products for unapproved uses, pricing and Medicare and/or Medicaid reimbursement. Many of these investigations originate as “qui tam” actions under the False Claims Act. Under the False Claims Act, any individual can bring a claim on behalf of the government alleging that a person or entity has presented a false claim or caused a false claim to be submitted to the government for payment. The person bringing a qui tam suit is entitled to a share of any recovery or settlement. Qui tam suits, also commonly referred to as “whistleblower suits,” are often brought by current or former employees. In a qui tam suit, the government must decide whether to intervene and prosecute the case. If it declines, the individual may pursue the case alone. If the FDA or any other governmental agency initiates an enforcement action against us or if we are the subject of a qui tam suit and it is determined that we violated prohibitions relating to the promotion of products for unapproved uses, we could be subject to substantial civil or criminal fines or damage awards and other sanctions such as consent decrees and corporate integrity agreements pursuant to which our activities would be subject to ongoing scrutiny and monitoring to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Any such fines, awards or other sanctions would have an adverse effect on our revenue, business, financial prospects and reputation. 57 Our development programs may target indications that do not have a clearly defined regulatory pathway. This may make it difficult to predict the timing and costs of the clinical development of our product candidates. We may evaluate our product candidates for, and may develop new drug candidates for, indications that do not have a clearly defined regulatory pathway, including potentially indications which have limited or no approved therapies. The regulatory approval process for novel drug candidates can be more expensive and take longer than for other, better known or extensively studied drug candidates. We expect that the path for regulatory approval for these therapies to continue to evolve as companies refine their regulatory approval strategies and interact with regulatory authorities. Such evolution may impact our future clinical trial designs, including trial size and approval endpoints, in ways that we cannot predict today. Furthermore, for full approval of an NDA, the FDA requires a demonstration of efficacy based on a clinical benefit endpoint. The FDA may grant accelerated approval based on a surrogate endpoint reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. Even though our pivotal clinical trials for a specific indication may achieve their primary endpoints and are reasonably believed by us to be likely to predict clinical benefit, the FDA may not accept the results of such trials or approve our product candidates on an accelerated basis, or at all. It is also possible that the FDA may refuse to accept for filing and review any regulatory application we submit for regulatory approval in the United States. Even if our regulatory application is accepted for review, there may be delays in the FDA’s review process and the FDA may determine that such regulatory application does not contain adequate clinical or other data or support the approval of the product candidate. In such a case, the FDA may issue a complete response letter that may require that we conduct and/or complete additional clinical trials and preclinical studies or provide additional information or data before it will reconsider an application for approval. Any such requirements may be substantial, expensive and time-consuming, and there is no guarantee that we will continue to pursue such application or that the FDA will ultimately decide that any such application supports the approval of the product candidate. Furthermore, the FDA may also refer any regulatory application to an advisory committee for review and recommendation as to whether, and under what conditions, the application should be approved. While the FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions. 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 revenue to maintain our business. Similar risks may apply in foreign jurisdictions. There can be no assurance that the clinical outcomes trial will confirm that the surrogate endpoint used as the basis of the regulatory submissions we make will eventually show an adequate correlation with clinical outcomes. For example, with the passage of the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act, or FDORA, in December 2022, Congress modified certain provisions governing accelerated approval of drug and biologic products. Specifically, the new legislation authorized the FDA to: require a sponsor to have its confirmatory clinical trial underway before accelerated approval is awarded, require a sponsor of a product granted accelerated approval to submit progress reports on its post-approval studies to FDA every six months (until the study is completed); and use expedited procedures to withdraw accelerated approval of an NDA after the confirmatory trial fails to verify the product’s clinical benefit. Further, FDORA requires the agency to publish on its website “the rationale for why a post-approval study is not appropriate or necessary” whenever it decides not to require such a study upon granting accelerated approval. 58 In March 2023, the FDA issued draft guidance that outlines its current thinking and approach to accelerated approval. The agency indicated that the accelerated approval pathway is commonly used for approval of oncology drugs due to the serious and life-threatening nature of cancer. Although single-arm trials have been commonly used to support accelerated approval, a randomized controlled trial is the preferred approach as it provides a more robust efficacy and safety assessment and allows for direct comparisons to an available therapy. To that end, the FDA outlined considerations for designing, conducting, and analyzing data for trials intended to support accelerated approvals of oncology therapeutics. Subsequently, in December 2024 and January 2025, the FDA issued additional draft guidances relating to accelerated approval. These guidances describe FDA’s latest thinking on what it means to conduct a confirmatory trial with due diligence and how the agency plans to interpret whether such a study needs to be underway at the time of approval. While these guidances are currently only in draft form and will ultimately not be legally binding even when finalized, sponsors typically observe the FDA’s guidance closely to ensure that their investigational products qualify for accelerated approval. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with pharmaceutical product development, we are unable to predict the timing or amount of any increase in our anticipated development costs. We may not be able to market and sell any product candidate we develop in combination with an unapproved therapy if that unapproved therapy does not ultimately obtain marketing approval. In addition, unapproved therapies face the same risks described with respect to our product candidates currently in development, including the potential for serious adverse effects, delay in their clinical trials and lack of FDA or European Commission approval. If the FDA, the European Commission or similar foreign regulatory authorities do not approve these other therapies or revoke their approval of, or if safety, efficacy, manufacturing, or supply issues arise with, the therapies we choose to evaluate in combination with our product candidates, we may be unable to obtain approval of or market any such product candidate. Average review times at the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of other government agencies that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable. Disruptions at the FDA, EMA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, the U.S. In addition, disruptions may result due to events similar to the COVID-19 pandemic. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of companies announced receipt of complete response letters due to the FDA’s inability to complete required inspections for their applications. In the event of a similar public health emergency in the future, the FDA may not be able to continue its current pace and review timelines could be extended. 59 Further, there is substantial uncertainty as to how measures being implemented by the new Trump Administration across the government will impact the FDA, CMS and other federal agencies with jurisdiction over our activities. For example, since taking office, President Trump has issued a number of executive orders, which could have a significant impact on the manner in which the FDA conducts its operations and engages in regulatory and oversight activities. These include E.O. 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” January 31, 2025; E.O. 14212, “Establishing the President’s Make America Healthy Again Commission,” February 13, 2025; and E.O. 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative,” February 21, 2025. If these or other orders or executive actions impose constraints on FDA’s ability to engage in oversight and implementation activities in the normal course, our business may be negatively impacted. In addition, the loss of FDA personnel could lead to further disruptions and delays in FDA review and oversight of our product candidates. Similarly, efforts by the new administration to substantially reduce or delay research funding by the National Institutes of Health of medical research could have substantial direct or indirect impacts on our research activities. The facilities used by our contract manufacturers to manufacture our product candidates must be approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities pursuant to inspections that will be conducted after we submit our NDA to the FDA or comparable applications to those foreign authorities. We do not control the manufacturing process of, and are completely dependent on, our contract manufacturing partners for compliance with cGMPs or similar foreign requirements for manufacture of both active drug substances and finished drug products. If our contract manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or others, they will not be able to secure and/or maintain regulatory approval for their manufacturing facilities. In addition, we have no control over the ability of our contract manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates or if it withdraws any such approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our product candidates, if approved. We may be unable to obtain raw materials or drug components for an indeterminate period of time if any of our third-party suppliers and manufacturers were to cease or interrupt production or otherwise fail to supply these materials or components to us for any reason, including due to regulatory requirements or actions (including recalls), adverse financial developments at or affecting the supplier or manufacturer, failure by the supplier or manufacturer to comply with current good manufacturing practices, or cGMPs, contaminations, business interruptions, or labor shortages or disputes, or if we were to terminate our relationship with any of our third-party suppliers or manufacturers for any reason. For example, proposed legislation has been introduced in Congress that could prohibit, among other things, U.S. government agencies from entering into contracts with companies that use certain equipment or services provided by certain Chinese companies, which could cause us to reevaluate our relationship with our Chinese contract manufacturer. In some cases, the technology required to manufacture our product candidates may be unique to the original manufacturer and we may have difficulty transferring such skills or technology to another third party. Further, if we are required to change manufacturers for any reason, we will be required to verify that the new manufacturer maintains facilities and procedures that comply with quality standards and with all applicable regulations and guidelines. The delays associated with the verification of a new manufacturer could negatively affect our ability to develop product candidates in a timely manner or within budget. There are a limited number of suppliers for raw materials that we use to manufacture our drugs and there may be a need to assess alternate suppliers to prevent a possible disruption of the manufacture of the materials necessary to produce our product candidates for our clinical trials, and if approved, ultimately for commercial sale. We do not have any control over the process or timing of the acquisition of these raw materials by our manufacturers. Moreover, we currently do not have any agreements for the commercial production of these raw materials. Although we generally do not begin a clinical trial unless we believe we have a sufficient supply of a product candidate to complete the clinical trial, any significant delay in the supply of a product candidate, or the raw material components thereof, for an ongoing clinical trial due to the need to replace a third-party manufacturer could considerably delay completion of our clinical trials, product testing and potential regulatory approval of our product candidates. If our manufacturers or we are unable to purchase these raw materials after regulatory approval has been obtained for our product candidates, the commercial launch of our product candidates would be delayed or there would be a shortage in supply, which would impair our ability to generate revenues from the sale of our product candidates. In addition, quality issues may arise during scale-up activities. If we or our manufacturing partners are unable to successfully scale up the manufacture of our product candidates in sufficient quality and quantity, the development, testing and clinical trials of that product candidate may be delayed or become infeasible, and marketing approval or commercial launch of any resulting product may be delayed or not obtained, which could significantly harm our business. We have not entered into long-term agreements with our current contract manufacturers or with any alternate fill/finish suppliers, and though we intend to do so prior to commercial launch in order to ensure that we maintain adequate supplies of finished drug product, we may be unable to enter into such an agreement or do so on commercially reasonable terms, which could have a material adverse impact upon our business. We currently obtain our supplies of finished drug product through individual purchase orders. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet rigorously enforced regulatory standards or meet expected deadlines, we may be unable to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize any of our product candidates on a timely basis or at all. The FDA and regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions require us to comply with GCP requirements for conducting, monitoring, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials, in order to ensure that the data and results are scientifically credible and accurate and that the trial subjects are adequately informed of the potential risks of participating in clinical trials. We rely on medical institutions, clinical investigators, contract laboratories and other third parties, such as CROs, to conduct GLP-compliant nonclinical studies and GCP-compliant clinical trials on our product candidates properly and on time. While we will have agreements governing their activities, we control only certain aspects of their activities and have limited influence over their actual performance. The third parties with whom we contract for execution of our GLP nonclinical studies and our GCP clinical trials play a significant role in the conduct of these studies and trials and the subsequent collection and analysis of data. These third parties are not our employees and, except for restrictions imposed by our contracts with such third parties, we have limited ability to control the amount or timing of resources that they devote to our programs. Although we rely on these third parties to conduct GLP-compliant preclinical and nonclinical studies and GCP-compliant clinical trials for our product candidates, we remain responsible for ensuring that each of our GLP preclinical studies and clinical trials is conducted in accordance with its investigational plan and protocol and applicable laws and regulations, and our reliance on the CROs does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. If the third parties conducting our GLP preclinical or nonclinical studies or our clinical trials do not perform their contractual duties or obligations, experience work stoppages, do not meet expected deadlines, terminate their agreements with us or need to be replaced, or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to their failure to adhere to our clinical trial protocols or to GCPs, or for any other reason, we may need to enter into new arrangements with alternative third parties. This could be difficult, costly or impossible, and our preclinical studies or clinical trials may need to be extended, delayed, terminated or repeated. As a result we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval in a timely fashion, or at all, for the applicable product candidate, our financial results and the commercial prospects for our product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenues could be delayed. If our collaborations are not successful, our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates could be adversely affected. For example, we are collaborating with Hansoh (Shanghai) Healthtech Co., Ltd. and Jiangsu Hansoh Pharmaceutical Group Company Ltd. with respect to certain aspects of TERN-701, our small-molecule allosteric inhibitor of the BCR-ABL fusion gene. In the future, we may seek collaboration arrangements for the commercialization, or potentially for the development, of certain of our other product candidates depending on the merits of retaining commercialization rights for ourselves as compared to entering into collaboration arrangements. For example, certain of the disease areas that we believe our product candidates address require large, costly and later-stage clinical trials, which a collaboration partner may be better positioned to finance and/or conduct. In addition, a component of our strategy is to maximize the commercial value of our current and future product candidates, which may also strategically align with partnering commercial rights with partners that have large and established sales organizations. To the extent that we decide to enter into collaboration agreements, we may face significant competition for appropriate collaborators. Moreover, collaboration arrangements are complex and time-consuming to negotiate, document, implement and maintain and challenging to manage. We may not be successful in our efforts to enter into collaboration agreements. The terms of collaborations or other arrangements that we may establish may not be favorable to us. Current or future collaborators or strategic partners may develop, either alone or with others, products in related fields that are competitive with the products or potential products that are the subject of these collaborations. Furthermore, competing products, either developed by our current or future collaborators or strategic partners or to which our collaborators or strategic partners may have rights, may result in the withdrawal of partner support for our product candidates. Any of these developments could harm our product development efforts. Failure to obtain or maintain coverage and adequate reimbursement for our product candidates, if approved, could limit our ability to market those drugs and decrease our ability to generate revenue. Our ability to achieve acceptable levels of coverage and reimbursement for products by governmental authorities, private health insurers and other organizations will have an effect on our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates. Assuming we obtain coverage for our product candidates by a third-party payor, the resulting reimbursement payment rates may not be adequate or may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high. We cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement in the United States, the European Economic Area, or EEA, or elsewhere will be available for our product candidates or any product that we may develop, and any reimbursement that may become available may be decreased or eliminated. It is possible that a third-party payor may consider our product candidates as substitutable and only offer to reimburse patients for the less expensive drug. Even if we show improved efficacy or improved convenience of administration with our product candidates, pricing of existing third-party therapeutics may limit the amount we will be able to charge for our product candidates. These payors may deny or revoke the reimbursement status of a given product or establish prices for new or existing marketed products at levels that are too low to enable us to realize an appropriate return on our investment in our product candidates. For products administered under the supervision of a physician, obtaining coverage and adequate reimbursement may be even more challenging given third-party payor price sensitivity to high-cost therapeutics (including oncology and other specialty medicines). Additionally, separate reimbursement for the product itself or the treatment or procedure in which the product is used may not be available, which may impact physician utilization. If reimbursement is not available or is available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates, and may not be able to obtain a satisfactory financial return on our product candidates. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our product candidates to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance. Furthermore, rules and regulations regarding reimbursement change frequently, in some cases on short notice, and such changes also may significantly impact the coverage and reimbursement levels for our products. In many countries, the prices of medical products are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for medical products, and instead monitor and control company profits. Additional foreign price controls or other changes in pricing regulation could restrict the amount that we are able to charge for our product candidates. Accordingly, in markets outside the United States, the reimbursement for our product candidates may be reduced compared with the United States and may be insufficient to generate commercially-reasonable revenue and profits. We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of our product candidates due to the trend toward managed health care, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations and additional legislative changes. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription drugs and biologics and surgical procedures and other treatments, has become and remains intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. Our product candidates may not be commercially successful for a variety of reasons, including, among other things, competitive factors, pricing or physician preference, reimbursement by insurers, the degree and rate of physician and patient adoption of our current or future product candidates. Any failure by our product candidates that obtain regulatory approval to achieve market acceptance or commercial success would adversely affect our results of operations. If we are unable to establish sales capabilities on our own or through third parties, we may not be able to market and sell our product candidates, if approved, effectively in the United States and foreign jurisdictions or generate drug revenue. In order to commercialize our product candidates in the United States and foreign jurisdictions, we must build our marketing, sales, distribution, managerial and other non-technical capabilities or make arrangements with third parties to perform these services, and we may not be successful in doing so. If any of our product candidates receive regulatory approval, we expect to establish a sales organization with technical expertise and supporting distribution capabilities to commercialize each such product candidate, which will be expensive and time consuming. We have no prior experience in the marketing, sale and distribution of pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology products, and there are significant risks involved in building and managing a sales organization, including our ability to hire, retain and incentivize qualified individuals, generate sufficient sales leads, provide adequate training to sales and marketing personnel and effectively manage a geographically dispersed sales and marketing team. Any failure or delay in the development of our internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities would adversely impact the commercialization of these products. We may choose to collaborate with third parties that have direct sales forces and established distribution systems, either to augment our own sales force and distribution systems or in lieu of our own sales force and distribution systems. If we are unable to enter into such arrangements on acceptable terms or at all, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates. If we are not successful in commercializing our product candidates or any future product candidates, either on our own or through arrangements with one or more third parties, we may not be able to generate any future drug revenue and we would incur significant additional losses. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional failures to comply with the regulations of the FDA and non-U.S. regulators, provide accurate information to the FDA and non-U.S. regulators, comply with healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations in the United States and abroad, report financial information or data accurately or disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Such misconduct could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and cause serious harm to our reputation. It is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting obligations and oversight if subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. Although we have procedures in place that are intended to prevent them from seeking to take advantage of that non-public information, it is possible that those individuals could attempt to profit from non-public information obtained from us, causing us reputational harm and exposing us to potential liability. These laws may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we will conduct our operations, including how we research, market, sell and distribute our product candidates, if approved. Such laws include: •the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, persons or entities from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, receiving or providing any remuneration (including any kickback, bribe, or certain rebate), directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward, or in return for, either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, lease, order or recommendation of, any good, facility, item or service, for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under U.S. federal and state healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation; •the U.S. federal false claims and civil monetary penalties laws, including the civil False Claims Act, which, among other things, impose criminal and civil penalties, including through civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, against individuals or entities for knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, to the U.S. federal government, claims for payment or approval that are false or fraudulent, knowingly making, using or causing to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim, or from knowingly making a false statement to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the U.S. federal government. In addition, the government may assert that a claim including items and services resulting from a violation of the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the False Claims Act; •the U.S. federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, which imposes criminal and civil liability for, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, or knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false statement, in connection with the delivery of, or payment for, healthcare benefits, items or services; similar to the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation; •the U.S. federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, which requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies that are reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program to report annually to the government information related to certain payments and other transfers of value to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), certain non-physician practitioners (physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified nurse anesthetists, anesthesiology assistants and certified nurse midwives) and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by the physicians described above and their immediate family members; 67 •analogous U.S. state laws and regulations, including: state anti-kickback and false claims laws, which may apply to our future business practices, including but not limited to, research, distribution, sales and marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by any third-party payor, including private insurers; state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the U.S. federal government, or otherwise restrict payments that may be made to healthcare providers and other potential referral sources; and state laws and regulations that require drug manufacturers to file reports relating to pricing and marketing information, which requires tracking gifts and other remuneration and items of value provided to healthcare professionals and entities; and •similar healthcare laws and regulations in the EEA and other jurisdictions, including reporting requirements detailing interactions with and payments to healthcare providers. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, agency guidance or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other governmental laws and regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant penalties, including civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from government-funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid or similar programs in other countries or jurisdictions, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. Our failure to comply with the related reporting and payment obligations could result in additional reimbursement requirements, penalties, sanctions and fines that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Federal Supply Schedule program and other governmental pricing programs require participating manufacturers to report certain product and pricing data to the government. Pricing calculations vary among products and programs, are complex, and are often subject to interpretation by manufacturers, governmental or regulatory agencies and the courts, which can change and evolve over time. If we successfully commercialize any of our product candidates and participate in such governmental pricing programs, we may be held liable for errors associated with our submission of data. That liability could be significant, including potential civil monetary penalties per item of falsely reported or misrepresented drug pricing information. Such failure also could be grounds for other sanctions, such as termination from the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. We cannot provide assurance that any of our submissions, if we participate in government price reporting programs, will not be found by a governmental agency to be incomplete, incorrect, or otherwise non-compliant. Further, a growing number of states have enacted drug price transparency laws requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to report information to certain state agencies and other parties. Many of these laws provide for civil monetary penalties and other enforcement mechanisms if manufacturers are found to have violated requirements. In particular, there have been and continue to be a number of initiatives at the U.S. federal and state levels that seek to reduce healthcare costs and improve the quality of healthcare. For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively the ACA, was enacted, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers.1% and 13.0% of the average manufacturer price for branded and generic drugs, respectively; •a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected; •extension of a manufacturer’s Medicaid rebate liability to covered drugs dispensed to individuals who are enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations; and •expansion of eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs by, among other things, allowing states to offer Medicaid coverage to certain individuals with income at or below 133% of the federal poverty level, thereby potentially increasing a manufacturer’s Medicaid rebate liability. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. Thus, the ACA will remain in effect in its current form. During the first Trump Administration, the Congress and administration sought to overturn the ACA and related measures. Shortly after taking office in January 2025, President Trump revoked numerous executive orders issued by President Biden, including at least two executive orders (EO 14009, Strengthening Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, and EO 14070, Continuing to Strengthen Americans’ Access to Affordable, Quality Health Coverage) which were designed to further implement the ACA. We anticipate similar efforts to undermine the ACA, and the accompanying uncertainty, for the foreseeable future. Additionally, under Statutory PAYGO, the Administration is required to issue a sequestration order (capped at 4% for Medicare payments) if the PAYGO scorecard shows a net cost at the end of a Congressional session. Although Statutory PAYGO was expected to be triggered at the end of the 2021 Congressional session, subsequent legislation has delayed a Statutory PAYGO sequestration order until after 2024. In January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These new laws or any other similar laws introduced in the future may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other health care funding, which could negatively affect our future customers and accordingly, our financial operations. Indeed, under current legislation, the actual reductions in Medicare payments may vary up to 4%. The prices of prescription pharmaceuticals in the United States and foreign jurisdictions are subject to scrutiny and considerable legislative and executive actions that could impact the prices we obtain for our drug products, if and when approved. 69 In addition, in October 2020, HHS and the FDA published a final rule allowing states and other entities to develop a Section 804 Importation Program, or SIP, to import certain prescription drugs from Canada into the United States. That regulation was challenged in a lawsuit by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) but the case was dismissed by a federal district court in February 2023 after the court found that PhRMA did not have standing to sue HHS. Seven states (Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Texas and Vermont) have passed laws allowing for the importation of drugs from Canada. North Dakota and Virginia have passed legislation establishing workgroups to examine the impact of a state importation program. As of May 2024, five states (Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire and New Mexico) had submitted Section 804 Importation Program proposals to the FDA and, on January 5, 2024, the FDA approved Florida’s plan for Canadian drug importation. That state now has authority to import certain drugs from Canada for a period of two years once certain conditions are met. Florida will first need to submit a pre-import request for each drug selected for importation, which must be approved by the FDA. The state will also need to relabel the drugs and perform quality testing of the products to meet FDA standards. Further, on November 20, 2020, HHS finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers. Pursuant to court order, the removal and addition of the aforementioned safe harbors were delayed and recent legislation imposed a moratorium on implementation of the rule until January 1, 2026. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) further delayed implementation of this rule to January 1, 2032. On August 16, 2022, the IRA was signed into law by President Biden. The new legislation has implications for Medicare Part D, which is a program available to individuals who are entitled to Medicare Part A or enrolled in Medicare Part B to give them the option of paying a monthly premium for outpatient prescription drug coverage. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare (beginning in 2026), with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (beginning in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. This provision applies to drug products that have been approved for at least 9 years and biologics that have been licensed for 13 years, but it does not apply to drugs and biologics that have been approved for a single rare disease or condition. Nonetheless, since CMS may establish a maximum price for these products in price negotiations, we would be fully at risk of government action if our products are the subject of Medicare price negotiations. Moreover, given the risk that could be the case, these provisions of the IRA may also further heighten the risk that we would not be able to achieve the expected return on our drug products or full value of our patents protecting our products if prices are set after such products have been on the market for nine years. The first cycle of negotiations for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program commenced in the summer of 2023. In August 2024, the HHS published the results of the first Medicare drug price negotiations for ten selected drugs that treat a range of conditions, including diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and rheumatoid arthritis. The prices of these ten drugs will become effective January 1, 2026. On January 17, 2025, CMS announced its selection of 15 additional drugs covered by Part D for the second cycle of negotiations. Thereafter, following the change in administrations, CMS issued a public statement on January 29, 2025, declaring that lowering the cost of prescription drugs is a top priority of the new administration and CMS is committed to considering opportunities to bring greater transparency in the negotiation program. The second cycle of negotiations with participating drug companies will occur during 2025, and any negotiated prices for this second set of drugs will be effective starting January 1, 2027. In addition to the drug price negotiation program, the IRA established inflation rebate programs under Medicare Part B and Part D. These programs require manufacturers to pay rebates to Medicare if they raise their prices for certain Part B and Part D drugs faster than the rate of inflation. On December 9, 2024, with issuance of its 2025 Physician Fee Schedule final regulation, CMS finalized its rules governing the IRA inflation rebate programs. In addition, the IRA potentially raises legal risks with respect to individuals participating in a Medicare Part D prescription drug plan who may experience a gap in coverage if they required coverage above their initial annual coverage limit before they reached the higher threshold, or “catastrophic period” of the plan. Individuals requiring services exceeding the initial annual coverage limit and below the catastrophic period, must pay 100% of the cost of their prescriptions until they reach the catastrophic period. Among other things, the IRA contains many provisions aimed at reducing this financial burden on individuals by reducing the co-insurance and co-payment costs, expanding eligibility for lower income subsidy plans and price caps on annual out-of-pocket expenses, each of which could have potential pricing and reporting implications. On June 6, 2023, Merck & Co. filed a lawsuit against the HHS and CMS asserting that, among other things, the IRA’s Drug Price Negotiation Program for Medicare constitutes an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Subsequently, a number of other parties, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, the PhRMA, Astellas, Novo Nordisk, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, also filed lawsuits in various courts with similar constitutional claims against the HHS and CMS. HHS has generally won the substantive disputes in these cases, and various federal district court judges have expressed skepticism regarding the merits of the legal arguments being pursued by the pharmaceutical industry. Certain of these cases are now on appeal and, on October 30, 2024, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard oral argument in three of these cases. We expect that litigation involving these and other provisions of the IRA will continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results. Legally-mandated price controls on payment amounts by third-party payors or other restrictions could harm our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. This could reduce the ultimate demand for our product candidates or put pressure on our product pricing. This may be increasingly true with respect to products approved pursuant to the accelerated approval pathway. State Medicaid programs and other payers are developing strategies and implementing significant coverage barriers, or refusing to cover these products outright, arguing that accelerated approval drugs have insufficient or limited evidence despite meeting the FDA’s standards for accelerated approval. If we or any third parties we may engage are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we or such third parties are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, our product candidates may lose any regulatory approval that may have been obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability. Our projections of addressable patient populations that have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates are based on estimates. These estimates have been derived from a variety of sources, including the scientific literature, surveys of clinics, patient foundations or market research, and may prove to be incorrect. Further, new studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these diseases. The number of patients may turn out to be lower than expected. Additionally, the potentially addressable patient population for our product candidates may not ultimately be amenable to treatment with our product candidates. Our market opportunity may also be limited by future competitor treatments that enter the market. If any of our estimates are inaccurate, the market opportunities for any of our product candidates could be significantly diminished and have an adverse material impact on our business. If any third-party patents or other intellectual property rights are found to cover our product candidates or their compositions, methods of use or manufacturing, we may be required to pay damages, which could be substantial, and we would not be free to manufacture or market our product candidates or to do so without obtaining a license, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. Regardless of merits, intellectual property disputes can be costly to defend, time-consuming and may cause our business, operating results and financial condition to suffer. As the pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology industries expand and more patents are issued, the risks increase that there may be patents issued to third parties that relate to our products and technology of which we are not aware or that we may need to challenge to continue our operations as currently contemplated. These risks may also increase because of the highly competitive therapeutic areas in which we are developing product candidates, in particular oncology and obesity, and the number of other companies pursuing new and innovative treatments for serious diseases in these areas, potentially resulting in various overlapping patent claims held by a number of different companies. The risks of being involved in such legal proceedings may increase as our product candidates advance in clinical development and near potential commercialization. We may face allegations that we have infringed the trademarks, copyrights, patents and other intellectual property rights of third parties, including patents held by our competitors or by non-practicing entities. For example, we are aware of patents and patent applications owned by third parties, some with broad claims, that such parties may assert cover our compounds currently in research and development. Litigation may make it necessary to defend ourselves by determining the scope, enforceability and validity of third-party proprietary rights, or to establish our proprietary rights. Interference or derivation proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by us or declared by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions or establish proprietary rights with respect to our patents or patent applications or those of our licensors. Regardless of whether claims that we are infringing patents or other intellectual property rights have merit, the claims can be time consuming, divert management attention and financial resources and are costly to evaluate and defend. The legal threshold for initiating litigation or contested proceedings is low, so that even lawsuits or proceedings with a modest probability of success might be initiated against us. For example, litigation can involve substantial damages for infringement, and if the court finds that the infringement was willful, we could be ordered to pay treble damages and the patent owner’s attorneys’ fees. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving competitors access to the same intellectual property or technologies licensed to us. As such, we may not be aware of patents or pending or future patent applications that, if issued, would block us from commercializing our product candidates. Claims in patent applications can also be revised before issuance. Therefore, we cannot be certain that others have not filed patent applications or made public disclosures relating to our technology or our contemplated technology. A third party may have filed, and may in the future file, patent applications covering our product candidates or technology similar to ours. Any such patent application may have priority over our patent applications or patents, which could further require us to obtain rights to issued patents covering such technologies. If another party has filed a U.S. patent application on inventions similar to ours, depending on whether the timing of the filing date falls under certain patent laws, we may have to participate in a priority contest (such as an interference proceeding) declared by the USPTO to determine priority of invention in the United States. The costs of patent litigation and other proceedings could be substantial, and it is possible that such efforts would be unsuccessful if it is determined that the other party had independently arrived at the same or similar invention prior to our own invention, resulting in a loss of our U.S. patent position with respect to such invention. If we were sued for patent infringement, we would need to demonstrate that our product candidates either do not infringe the patent claims of the relevant patent or that the patent claims are invalid or unenforceable, and we may not be successful in doing so. Proving invalidity or unenforceability is difficult. For example, in the United States, proving invalidity requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of validity enjoyed by issued patents. Even if we believe third-party intellectual property claims are without merit, there is no assurance that a court would find in our favor on questions of infringement, validity, or enforceability. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively or dedicate substantially greater resources to prosecuting legal actions than we can. Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses, and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments, and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Litigation is inherently unpredictable, and outcomes are uncertain. Further, as the costs and outcome of these types of claims and proceedings can vary significantly, it is difficult to estimate potential losses that may occur. Such claims and proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately. Accordingly, we are unable at this time to estimate the effects of these potential future lawsuits on our financial condition, operations or cash flows. In addition, such agreements may not be self-executing such that the intellectual property subject to such agreements may not be assigned to us without additional assignments being executed, and we may fail to obtain such assignments. In addition, such agreements may be breached. Accordingly, 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. If we fail in prosecuting or defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property. Even if we are successful in prosecuting or defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to our senior management and scientific personnel, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Our success depends, in part, upon our ability to maintain a competitive position in the development and protection of technologies and any future product candidates for use in these fields and upon our ability to obtain, maintain and enforce our intellectual property rights. We seek to obtain and maintain patents and other intellectual property rights to restrict the ability of others to market products that misappropriate our technology and/or infringe our intellectual property to unfairly and illegally compete with any of our product candidates. If we are unable to protect our intellectual property and proprietary rights, our competitive position and our business could be harmed, as third parties may be able to make, use or sell products that are substantially the same as any product candidates we may sell without incurring the sizeable development and, in some cases, licensing costs that we have incurred, which would adversely affect our ability to compete in the market. We use a combination of patents, trademarks, know-how, confidentiality procedures and contractual provisions to protect our proprietary technology and that of our licensors. However, these protections may not be adequate and may not provide us with any competitive advantage. For example, patents may not issue from any of our or our licensors’ currently pending or any future patent applications, and our or our licensors’ issued patents and any future patents that may issue may not survive legal challenges to their scope, validity or enforceability or provide significant protection for us. The patent application and approval process is expensive, time-consuming and complex. We may not be able to file, prosecute and maintain all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner or in all jurisdictions. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Moreover, depending on the terms of any future license or collaboration agreements to which we may become a party, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, covering technology licensed from third parties. Therefore, these patents and patent applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. No consistent policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed in biotechnology and pharmaceutical patents has emerged to date in the United States or in many foreign jurisdictions. The standards applied by the USPTO and foreign patent offices in granting patents are not always applied uniformly or predictably. In addition, the determination of patent rights with respect to biological and pharmaceutical products commonly involves complex legal and factual questions, which have in recent years been the subject of much litigation. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Thus, we cannot offer any assurances about which, if any, patents will issue, the breadth of any such patents, whether any issued patents will be found invalid and unenforceable or will be threatened by third parties or whether any issued patents will effectively prevent others from commercializing competing technologies and product candidates. Further, the USPTO, international trademark offices or judicial bodies may deny our trademark applications and, even if published or registered, these trademarks may not effectively protect our brand and goodwill. Like patents, trademarks also may be successfully opposed or challenged. Moreover, third parties may independently develop technologies that are competitive with ours and such competitive technologies may or may not infringe our intellectual property. The enforcement of our intellectual property rights also depends on the success of any legal actions we may take against these infringers in the respective country or forum, but these actions may not be successful. As with all granted intellectual property, such intellectual property may be challenged, invalidated or circumvented, may not provide protection and/or may not prove to be enforceable in actions against specific alleged infringers. For example, third parties may be able to make products that are similar to ours but that are not covered by the claims of our patents. Third parties may assert that we or our licensors were not the first to make the inventions covered by our issued patents or pending patent applications. The claims of our or our licensors’ issued patents or patent applications when issued may not cover our product candidates or any future products that we develop. We may not have freedom to commercialize unimpeded by the patent rights of others. Third parties may have patents that dominate, block or are otherwise relevant to our technology. There may be prior public disclosures or other art that could be deemed to invalidate one or more of our patent claims. Further, we may not develop additional proprietary technologies in the future, and, if we do, they may not be patentable. Our operating expenses may fluctuate significantly in the future as a result of a variety of factors, including the costs of preparing, filing, prosecuting, defending and enforcing patent and trademark claims and other intellectual property-related costs, including adverse proceedings and litigation costs. Further, our issued patents could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court. To prevent infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, a court may decide that one or more patent of ours or any of our current licensors or future licensors is not valid or is unenforceable, in whole or in part, or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our or our licensors’ patents do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of our or our licensors’ patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly, which may curtail or preclude our ability to exclude third parties from making and selling similar or competitive products, and could put our or our licensors’ patent applications at risk of not issuing. If we or any of our potential future collaborators were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent directed at our products, the defendant could counterclaim that our or our licensors’ patent is invalid and/or unenforceable in whole or in part. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge include an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could also include an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO or made a misleading statement during prosecution. Third parties may also raise similar validity claims before the USPTO in post-grant proceedings such as ex parte reexaminations, inter partes review or post-grant review, or oppositions or similar proceedings outside the United States, in parallel with litigation or even outside the context of litigation. Competing products may also be sold in other countries in which our patent coverage might not exist or be as strong. If we lose a foreign patent lawsuit, alleging our infringement of a competitor’s patents, we could be prevented from marketing our products in one or more foreign countries. Any of these occurrences could adversely affect our competitive business position, business prospects and financial condition. Similar mechanisms for challenging the validity and enforceability of a patent exist in ex-U.S. patent offices and may result in the revocation, cancellation, or amendment of any ex-U.S. patents we hold in the future. For the patents and patent applications that we may license in the future, we may have limited or no right to participate in the defense of any licensed patents against challenge by a third party. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on such product candidate. Such a loss of patent protection would have a material adverse impact on our business. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of our common stock. An unfavorable outcome could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or if a non-exclusive license is offered and our competitors gain access to the same technology. In addition, the uncertainties associated with litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our clinical trials, continue our research programs, license necessary technology from third parties or enter into development or manufacturing partnerships that would help us bring our products to market. Such licenses or other arrangements may be subject to early termination if we fail to comply with our obligations in our agreements with third parties, which could result in the loss of rights or technology that are material to our business. For example, we are party to an assignment agreement with Vintagence Biotechnology Ltd. with respect to our THR-β program. Under these agreements, we are obligated to pay the counterparties fees, which may include annual license fees, milestone payments, royalties, a percentage of revenues associated with the applicable technology and a percentage of sublicensing revenue. In addition, under certain of such agreements, we are required to diligently pursue the development of products using the applicable technology. If we fail to comply with these obligations and fail to cure our breach within a specified period of time, the counterparty may have the right to terminate the applicable agreement, in which event we could lose valuable rights and technology that are material to our business. We may have limited control over these activities or any other intellectual property that may be related to our in-licensed intellectual property. For example, we cannot be certain that such activities by these licensors will be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations or will result in valid and enforceable patents and other intellectual property rights. We may have limited control over the manner in which our licensors initiate an infringement proceeding against a third-party infringer of the intellectual property rights, or defend certain of the intellectual property that may be licensed to us. It is possible that the licensors’ infringement proceeding or defense activities may be less vigorous than if we conduct them ourselves. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could affect the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology, or affect financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Our ability to out-license these patent rights, or to prevent the third party from out-licensing these patent rights, may be limited in certain countries. Unless we enter into an agreement with the joint owner, we will be subject to certain default rules pertaining to joint ownership. Certain countries require the consent of all joint owners to license jointly owned patents, and if we are unable to obtain such consent from the joint owner, we may not be able to license our rights under these patents and patent applications. In certain other countries, including the United States, the joint owner could license its rights under these patents and patent applications to another party without our consent and without any duty of accounting to us. Failure to meet our own obligations to our licensors or upstream licensors, including such government agencies, may result in the loss of our rights to such intellectual property, which could harm our business. Such government agencies may retain rights in such intellectual property, including the right to grant or require us to grant mandatory licenses or sublicenses to such intellectual property to third parties under certain specified circumstances, including if it is necessary to meet health and safety needs that we are not reasonably satisfying or if it is necessary to meet requirements for public use specified by federal regulations, or to manufacture products in the United States. Any exercise of such rights, including with respect to any such required sublicense of these licenses could result in the loss of significant rights and could harm our ability to commercialize licensed products. The failure to name the proper inventors on a patent application can result in the patents issuing thereon being unenforceable. Inventorship disputes may arise from conflicting views regarding the contributions of different individuals named as inventors, the effects of foreign laws where foreign nationals are involved in the development of the subject matter of the patent, conflicting obligations of third parties involved in developing our product candidates or as a result of questions regarding co-ownership of potential joint inventions. For example, we may have inventorship disputes arise from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates. Alternatively, or additionally, we may enter into agreements to clarify the scope of our rights in such intellectual property. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship and/or ownership. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, valuable intellectual property. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.S. government, such that we or our licensors are not the sole and exclusive owners of the patents we in-licensed. If other third parties have ownership rights or other rights to our patents, including in-licensed patents, they may be able to license such patents to our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and technology. This could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations and prospects. Many of these consultants, and many of our employees, were previously employed at, or may have previously provided or may be currently providing consulting services to, universities or other pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies including our competitors or potential competitors. These employees and consultants may have executed proprietary rights, non-disclosure and non-competition agreements, or similar agreements, in connection with such other current or previous employment. Although we try to ensure that our employees and consultants do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us and seek assurances that they will not, we may become subject to claims that we, our employees or a consultant inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other information proprietary to their former employers or their former or current clients. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in successfully defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, which could adversely affect our business. Such intellectual property could be awarded to a third party, and we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to commercialize our technology or drugs and combination therapies. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to our management team. Any of the foregoing would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. However, filing, prosecuting and defending patents on product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. The requirements for patentability may differ in certain countries, particularly in developing countries. In addition, any future intellectual property license agreements may not always include worldwide rights. Consequently, we have not pursued or maintained, and may not pursue or maintain in the future, patent protection for our product candidates in every country or territory in which we may sell our drugs and combination therapies and we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained or maintained patent protection to develop their own products, and may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States and where our ability to enforce our patents to stop infringing activities may be inadequate. These products may compete with any current or future product candidates we may sell, and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protections, particularly those relating to pharmaceuticals and biopharmaceuticals, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or the marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Additionally, the laws of some countries outside of the United States and Europe do not afford intellectual property protection to the same extent as the laws of the United States and Europe. Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property and proprietary rights in certain foreign jurisdictions. For example, many foreign countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner must grant licenses to third parties. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in certain countries outside the United States and Europe. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of such patent. If we are forced to grant a license to third parties with respect to any patents relevant to our business, our competitive position may be impaired, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be adversely affected. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license. The scope of a patent claim is determined by an interpretation of the law, the written disclosure in a patent and the patent’s prosecution history. Our interpretation of the relevance or the scope of a patent or a pending patent application may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to market our product candidates. We may incorrectly determine that our product candidates are not covered by a third-party patent or may incorrectly predict whether a third-party’s pending patent application will issue with claims of relevant scope. Our determination of the expiration date of any patent in the United States or abroad that we consider relevant may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our product candidates. Our failure to identify and correctly interpret relevant patents or patent applications may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our product candidates. There may be prior art of which we are not aware that may affect the patentability of our patent claims or, if issued, affect the validity or enforceability of a patent claim. Further, we may not be aware of all third-party intellectual property rights potentially relating to our product candidates or their intended uses, and as a result the impact of such third-party intellectual property rights upon the patentability of our own patents and patent applications, as well as the impact of such third-party intellectual property upon our freedom to operate, is highly uncertain. Because patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for typically a period of 18 months after filing, or may not be published at all, we cannot be certain that we were the first to file any patent application related to our product candidates. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Furthermore, for U.S. applications in which all claims are entitled to a priority date before March 2013, an interference proceeding can be provoked by a third party or instituted by the USPTO to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by the patent claims of our applications. For U.S. patents and patent applications containing a claim not entitled to priority before March 2013, there is a greater level of uncertainty in the patent law in view of the passage of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the AIA, which brought into effect significant changes to the U.S. patent laws, including new procedures for challenging pending patent applications and issued patents. Patent terms may be shortened or lengthened by, for example, terminal disclaimers, patent term adjustments, supplemental protection certificates and patent term extensions, but the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Non-payment or delay in payment of patent fees, maintenance fees or annuities, delay in patent filings or delay in extension filings (including any patent term extension or adjustment filings), whether intentional or unintentional, may result in the loss of patent rights important to our business. Even if patents covering our product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired for a product candidate, we may be open to competition from competitive medications, including generic versions. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents directed towards such product candidates might expire before or shortly after such product candidates are commercialized. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing product candidates similar or identical to ours for a meaningful amount of time, or at all.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or Hatch-Waxman Act and similar legislation in the EU and certain other jurisdictions. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits, in certain cases, a patent term extension of up to five years for a patent covering an approved product as compensation for effective patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, we may not receive an extension if we fail to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, fail to apply within applicable deadlines, fail to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise fail to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the length of the extension could be less than we request. Only one patent per approved product can be extended, the extension cannot extend the total patent term beyond 14 years from approval, and the amount of available extension to any extension-eligible patent which claims a product, a method of using a product or a method of manufacturing a product, depends on a variety of factors, including the date on which the patent issues and certain dates related to the regulatory review period. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or the term of any such extension is less than we request, the period during which we can enforce our patent rights for the applicable product candidate will be shortened and our competitors may obtain approval to market competing products sooner. As a result, our revenue from applicable products could be reduced. Further, if this occurs, our competitors may take advantage of our investment in development and trials by referencing our clinical and nonclinical data and launch their product earlier than might otherwise be the case, and our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially harmed. We may be unable to obtain patents covering our product candidates that contain one or more claims that satisfy the requirements for listing in the Orange Book. Even if we submit a patent for listing in the Orange Book, the FDA may decline to list the patent, or a manufacturer of generic drugs may challenge the listing. If one of our product candidates is approved and a patent covering that product candidate is not listed in the Orange Book, a manufacturer of generic drugs would not have to provide advance notice to us of any abbreviated new drug application filed with the FDA to obtain permission to sell a generic version of such product candidate. Any of the foregoing could harm our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on patents and/or patent applications will be due to be paid to the USPTO and various governmental patent agencies outside of the United States in several stages over the lifetime of the patents and/or patent applications. We employ reputable professionals and rely on such third parties to help us comply with these requirements and effect payment of these fees with respect to the patents and patent applications that we own, and we may have to rely upon our licensors to comply with these requirements and effect payment of these fees with respect to any patents and patent applications that we license. In many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. However, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, competitors might be able to enter the market earlier than would otherwise have been the case. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the pharmaceutical industry involves both technological and legal complexity and is therefore costly, time consuming and inherently uncertain. Our patent rights may be affected by developments or uncertainty in U.S. or ex-U.S. patent statutes, patent case laws in USPTO rules and regulations or in the rules and regulations of ex-U.S. patent offices. There are a number of changes to the U.S. patent laws that may have a significant impact on our ability to protect our technology and enforce our intellectual property rights. For example, in September 2011, the AIA, was signed into law. The AIA includes provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and affect patent litigation. In particular, under the AIA, the United States transitioned in March 2013 to a “first to file” system in which the first inventor to file a patent application is entitled to the patent. Third parties are allowed to submit prior art before the issuance of a patent by the USPTO, and may become involved in post-grant proceedings including opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope or enforceability of, or invalidate, our patent rights, which could adversely affect our competitive position. This could have a negative impact on some of our intellectual property and could increase uncertainties surrounding obtaining and enforcement or defense of our issued patents. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents once obtained. Depending on decisions by Congress, the federal courts and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents we might obtain in the future. Similarly, statutory or judicial changes to the patent laws of other countries may increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. We cannot predict future changes in the interpretation of patent laws or changes to patent laws that might be enacted into law by U.S. and international legislative bodies. Those changes may materially affect the patents and patent applications of our licensors, our existing or future patents and patent applications and our ability to obtain additional patents in the future. We have taken steps to protect our trade secrets and unpatented know-how, including entering into confidentiality agreements with third parties, and confidential information and inventions agreements with employees, consultants and advisors. Despite these efforts, we cannot provide any assurances that all such agreements have been duly executed, and any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. In addition to contractual measures, we try to protect the confidential nature of our proprietary information using commonly accepted physical and technological security measures. Even though we use commonly accepted security measures, the criteria for protection of trade secrets can vary among different jurisdictions. Additionally, such security measures may not provide adequate protection for our proprietary information, for example, in the case of misappropriation of a trade secret by an employee, consultant, customer or third party with authorized access. Recourse we take against such misconduct may not provide an adequate remedy to fully protect our interests. Monitoring unauthorized uses and disclosures is difficult, and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to protect our proprietary technologies will be effective. Unauthorized parties may also attempt to copy or reverse engineer certain aspects of our product candidates that we consider proprietary. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. Moreover, third parties may still obtain this information or may come upon this or similar information independently, and we would have no right to prevent them from using that technology or information to compete with us. Trade secrets will over time be disseminated within the industry through independent development, the publication of journal articles and the movement of personnel skilled in the art from company to company or academic to industry scientific positions. Though our agreements with third parties typically restrict the ability of our advisors, employees, collaborators, licensors, suppliers, third-party contractors and consultants to publish data potentially relating to our trade secrets, our agreements may contain certain limited publication rights. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent such competitor from using that technology or information to compete with us, which could harm our competitive position. Because from time to time we expect to rely on third parties in the development, manufacture and distribution of our product candidates, we must, at times, share trade secrets with them. Despite employing the contractual and other security precautions described above, the need to share trade secrets 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. If any of these events occurs or if we otherwise lose protection for our trade secrets, the value of this information may be greatly reduced and our competitive position would be harmed. If we do not apply for patent protection prior to such publication or if we cannot otherwise maintain the confidentiality of our proprietary technology and other confidential information, then our ability to obtain patent protection or to protect our trade secret information may be jeopardized. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names or may be forced to stop using these names, which we need for name recognition by potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. During trademark registration proceedings, we may receive rejections of our applications by the USPTO or in other foreign jurisdictions. Although we would be given an opportunity to respond to those rejections, we may be unable to overcome such rejections. In addition, in the USPTO and in comparable agencies in many foreign jurisdictions, third parties are given an opportunity to oppose pending trademark applications and to seek to cancel registered trademarks. Opposition or cancellation proceedings may be filed against our trademarks, and our trademarks may not survive such proceedings. If we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected. We may license our trademarks and trade names to third parties, such as distributors. Though these license agreements may provide guidelines for how our trademarks and trade names may be used, a breach of these agreements or misuse of our trademarks and tradenames by our licensees may jeopardize our rights in or diminish the goodwill associated with our trademarks and trade names. Similar requirements exist in Europe. The FDA typically conducts a review of proposed product names, including an evaluation of potential for confusion with other product names. If the FDA (or an equivalent administrative body in a foreign jurisdiction) objects to any of our proposed proprietary single-agent or combination therapy names, it may be required to expend significant additional resources in an effort to identify a suitable substitute name that would qualify under applicable trademark laws, not infringe the existing rights of third parties and be acceptable to the FDA. Furthermore, in many countries, owning and maintaining a trademark registration may not provide an adequate defense against a subsequent infringement claim asserted by the owner of a senior trademark. At times, competitors or other third parties may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. In addition, there could be potential trade name or trademark infringement claims brought by owners of other registered trademarks or trademarks that incorporate variations of our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names. If we assert trademark infringement claims, a court may determine that the marks we have asserted are invalid or unenforceable, or that the party against whom we have asserted trademark infringement has superior rights to the marks in question. In this case, we could ultimately be forced to cease use of such trademarks. We are highly dependent upon members of our senior management team and our senior scientists. The loss of services of any of these individuals could delay or prevent the successful development of our pipeline, initiation or completion of our planned clinical trials or the commercialization of our current or future product candidates. We will need to hire additional personnel as we expand our clinical development and, if we initiate commercial activities, establish newly created roles at the leadership and operational levels. We may not be able to attract and retain quality personnel on acceptable terms, or at all. In addition, to the extent we hire personnel from competitors, we may be subject to allegations that they have been improperly solicited or that they have divulged proprietary or other confidential information, or that their former employers own their research output. Our management and personnel, systems and facilities currently in place may not be adequate to support this future growth. For example, we may be sued if any drug we develop allegedly causes injury or is found to be otherwise unsuitable during clinical testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability and breach of warranty. Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates. Even a successful defense would require significant financial and management resources. We currently carry product liability insurance covering our clinical trials. Although we maintain such insurance, any claim that may be brought against us could result in a court judgment or settlement in an amount that is not covered, in whole or in part, by our insurance or that is in excess of the limits of our insurance coverage. Our insurance policies also have various exclusions and deductibles, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. We will have to pay any amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient funds to pay such amounts. 86 Moreover, insurance laws vary significantly from country to country, and many countries require insurance to be approved by regulators of the respective country. As such, our existing insurance policies might not meet the requirements of a global trial, which could cause significant delays in our clinical trials and related business objectives. If and when we obtain approval for marketing any of our product candidates, we intend to expand our insurance coverage to include the sale of such product candidate; however, we may be unable to obtain this liability insurance on commercially reasonable terms or at all.S. economies and markets; •differing jurisdictions could present different issues for securing, maintaining or obtaining freedom to operate in such jurisdictions; •potentially reduced protection for intellectual property rights; •difficulties in compliance with different, complex and changing laws, regulations and court systems of multiple jurisdictions and compliance with a wide variety of foreign laws, treaties and regulations; •changes in non-U.S. regulations and customs, tariffs and trade barriers; •changes in non-U.S. currency exchange rates of the Renminbi, or RMB, U.S. dollar, euro and currency controls; •changes in a specific country’s or region’s political or economic environment, particularly China; •trade protection measures, import or export licensing requirements or other restrictive actions by governments; •negative consequences from changes in tax laws; •compliance with tax, employment, immigration and labor laws for employees living or traveling abroad, including, for example, the variable tax treatment in different jurisdictions of options granted or to be granted under our equity plans; •workforce uncertainty in countries where labor unrest is more common than in the United States; •litigation or administrative actions resulting from claims against us by current or former employees or consultants individually or as part of class actions, including claims of wrongful terminations, discrimination, misclassification or other violations of labor law or other alleged conduct; •difficulties associated with staffing and managing international operations, including differing labor relations; •production shortages resulting from any events affecting raw material supply or manufacturing capabilities abroad; and •business interruptions resulting from geo-political actions, including war and terrorism, state and non-state sponsored cyber intrusions and attacks, health epidemics, or natural disasters including earthquakes, typhoons, floods and fires. We and any third-party manufacturers and suppliers are subject to numerous federal, state and local environmental, health and safety laws, regulations and permitting requirements, including those governing laboratory procedures; the generation, handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous and regulated materials and wastes; the emission and discharge of hazardous materials into the ground, air and water; and employee health and safety. Our operations and those of our third-party manufacturers and CROs also produce hazardous waste. In some cases, these hazardous materials and various wastes resulting from their use are stored at our and our manufacturers’ and CROs’ facilities pending their use and disposal. We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination, which could cause an interruption of our commercialization efforts, research and development efforts and business operations and environmental damage resulting in costly clean-up and liabilities under applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, handling and disposal of these materials and specified waste products. Under certain environmental laws, we could be held responsible for costs relating to any contamination at our current or past facilities and at third-party facilities. In such an event, we may be held liable for any resulting damages and such liability could exceed our resources, and state or federal or other applicable authorities may curtail our use of certain materials and/or interrupt our business operations. Furthermore, environmental laws and regulations are complex, change frequently and have tended to become more stringent. We cannot predict the impact of such changes and cannot be certain of our future compliance. In addition, we cannot entirely eliminate the risk of accidental injury or contamination from hazardous materials or wastes. Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. We do not carry specific biological or hazardous waste insurance coverage, and our property, casualty and general liability insurance policies specifically exclude coverage for damages and fines arising from biological or hazardous waste exposure or contamination. Accordingly, in the event of contamination or injury, we could be held liable for damages or be penalized with fines in an amount exceeding our resources, and our clinical trials or regulatory approvals could be suspended, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. Implementation standards and enforcement practices are likely to remain uncertain for the foreseeable future, and we cannot yet determine the impact future laws, regulations, standards, or perception of their requirements may have on our business. This evolution may create uncertainty in our business, affect our ability to operate in certain jurisdictions or to collect, store, transfer use and share personal information, necessitate the acceptance of more onerous obligations in our contracts, result in liability or impose additional costs on us. The cost of compliance with these laws, regulations and standards is high and is likely to increase in the future. Any failure or perceived failure by us to comply with federal, state or foreign laws or regulations, our internal policies and procedures or our contracts governing our processing of personal information could result in negative publicity, government investigations and enforcement actions, claims by third parties and damage to our reputation, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our operations, financial performance and business. For example, most healthcare providers, including research institutions from which we obtain patient health information, are subject to privacy and security regulations promulgated under HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009. Under HIPAA, we could potentially face substantial criminal or civil penalties if we knowingly receive individually identifiable health information from a HIPAA-covered healthcare provider or research institution that has not satisfied HIPAA’s requirements for disclosure of individually identifiable health information, or otherwise violate applicable HIPAA requirements related to the protection of such information. The FTC has been particularly focused on the unpermitted processing of health data through its recent enforcement actions and is expanding the types of privacy violations that it interprets to be “unfair” under Section 5 of the FTC Act, The agency is also in the process of developing rules related to commercial surveillance and data security. We will need to account for the FTC’s evolving rules and guidance for proper privacy and data security practices in order to mitigate risk for a potential enforcement action, which may be costly. The FTC’s enforcement priorities (as well as those of other federal regulators) may be impacted by the change in administration and new leadership. These shifts in enforcement priorities may also impact our business. There are also increased restrictions at the federal level relating to transferring sensitive data outside of the United States to certain foreign countries. For example, in 2024, Congress passed H.B. 815, which included the Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2024. This law creates certain restrictions for entities that disclose sensitive data (including potential health data) to countries such as China. Failure to comply with these rules can lead to a potential FTC enforcement action. Additionally, the Department of Justice recently finalized a rule implementing Executive Order 14117, which creates similar restrictions related to the transfer of sensitive US data to countries such as China. These data transfer restrictions (and others that may pass in the future) may create operational challenges and legal risks for our business. As such, we may be subject to state laws requiring notification of affected individuals and state regulators in the event of a breach of personal information. In 2018 California passed into law the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA, which took effect on January 1, 2020, and imposed many requirements on businesses that process the personal information of California residents. Many of the CCPA’s requirements are similar to those found in the General Data Protection Regulation, or the GDPR, including requiring businesses to provide notice to data subjects regarding the information collected about them and how such information is used and shared, and providing data subjects the right to request access to such personal information and, in certain cases, request the erasure of such personal information. The CCPA also affords California residents the right to opt-out of “sales” of their personal information. The CCPA contains significant penalties for companies that violate its requirements. In November 2020 California voters passed a ballot initiative for the California Privacy Rights Act, or the CPRA, which went into effect on January 1, 2023, and significantly expanded the CCPA to incorporate additional GDPR-like provisions including requiring that the use, retention, and sharing of personal information of California residents be reasonably necessary and proportionate to the purposes of collection or processing, granting additional protections for sensitive personal information, and requiring greater disclosures related to notice to residents regarding retention of information. The provisions in the CPRA may apply to some of our business activities. In addition to California, at least 18 other states have passed comprehensive privacy laws similar to the CCPA and CPRA. These laws are either in effect or will go into effect sometime before the end of 2026. Like the CCPA and CPRA, these laws create obligations related to the processing of personal information, as well as special obligations for the processing of “sensitive” data (which includes health data in some cases). Some of the provisions of these laws may apply to our business activities. There are also states that are considering or have already passed comprehensive privacy laws during the 2023 legislative sessions that will go into effect in 2024 and beyond. There are also states that are specifically regulating health information that may affect our business. For example, Washington state recently passed a health privacy law that will regulate the collection and sharing of health information, and the law also has a private right of action, which further increases the relevant compliance risk. These laws may impact our business activities, including our identification of research subjects, relationships with business partners and ultimately the marketing and distribution of our products. Plaintiffs’ lawyers are also increasingly using privacy-related statutes at both the state and federal level to bring lawsuits against companies for their data-related practices. In particular, there have been a significant number of cases filed against companies for their use of pixels and other web trackers. These cases often allege violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and other state laws regulating wiretapping, as well as the federal Video Privacy Protection Act. The rise in these types of lawsuits creates potential risk for our business. Our Phase 1 trial for TERN-701, the CARDINAL trial, includes sites from the United States, Europe and other countries. The GDPR imposes stringent operational requirements for processors and controllers of personal data. Among other things, the GDPR requires covered companies to provide detailed notices and to abide by consent requirements for clinical trial subjects and other data subjects, to follow procedures regarding the security of personal data and notification of data processing obligations or security incidents to appropriate data protection authorities or data subjects, and to honor and provide certain privacy rights to individuals within the EEA, including the right to access, correct and delete their personal data. If our privacy or data security measures fail to comply with the requirements of the GDPR or other applicable laws or regulations, we may be subject to litigation, regulatory investigations, enforcement notices and/or enforcement actions requiring us to change the way we use personal data and/or fines. In addition to statutory enforcement, a personal data breach can lead to negative publicity and a potential loss of business. Companies that must comply with the GDPR face increased compliance obligations and risk, including more robust regulatory enforcement of data protection requirements and potential fines for noncompliance of up to €20 million or 4% of the annual global revenues of the noncompliant company, whichever is greater. Further, from January 1, 2021, we have had to comply with the GDPR and the United Kingdom GDPR, or UK GDPR, which, together with the amended UK Data Protection Act 2018, retains the GDPR in UK national law. The UK GDPR mirrors the fines under the GDPR, i.e. fines up to the greater of €20 million (£17.5 million) or 4% of global turnover. However, the UK adequacy decision will automatically expire in June 2025 unless the European Commission re-assesses and renews or extends that decision. Among other requirements, the GDPR regulates transfers of personal data subject to the GDPR to third countries that have not been found to provide adequate protection to such personal data, including the United States; in July 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union, or CJEU, invalidated the EU-US Privacy Shield Framework, or Privacy Shield for purposes of international transfers. The EU-US Privacy Shield has now been replaced with the EU-US Data Privacy Framework (DPF), which is intended to address the issues cited by the CJEU in its 2020 court decision. The European Commission issued an adequacy decision for the DPF on July 10, 2023, and it is now a valid mechanism to transfer data from the EU to the US for entities that have registered as part of the DPF. However, it is possible that the validity of the DPF will be challenged in court, which could further create instability related to international data transfers. Additionally, the recent election in the United States and the new administration may also impact whether the DPF remains an adequate data transfer framework. The continuing uncertainty around this issue may further impact our business operations in the EEA. The CJEU’s decision in 2020 also imposed further restrictions on the use of SCCs. The European Commission issued revised SCCs on June 4, 2021 to account for the decision of the CJEU and recommendations made by the European Data Protection Board. The revised SCCs must be used for relevant new data transfers from September 27, 2021. There is also some uncertainty around whether the revised clauses can be used for all types of data transfers, particularly whether they can be relied on for data transfers to non-EEA entities subject to the GDPR. As supervisory authorities issue further guidance on personal data export mechanisms, including circumstances where the SCCs cannot be used, and/or start taking enforcement action, we could suffer additional costs, complaints and/or regulatory investigations or fines, and/or if we are otherwise unable to transfer personal data between and among countries and regions in which we operate, it could affect the manner in which we provide our services, the geographical location or segregation of our relevant systems and operations, and could adversely affect our financial results. The United Kingdom also has its own data privacy framework that allows registered companies to transfer data from the UK to the US in accordance with the UK GDPR. It is unclear whether this data transfer mechanism will also be challenged in the future. We will likely be required to expend significant capital and other resources to ensure ongoing compliance with applicable privacy and data security laws. Claims that we have violated individuals’ privacy rights, failed to comply with applicable laws or breached our contractual obligations, even if we are not found liable, could be expensive and time-consuming to defend, and could result in adverse publicity that could harm our business. Moreover, even if we take all necessary action to comply with regulatory requirements, we could be subject to a hack or data breach, which could subject us to fines and penalties, as well as reputational damage. Any threatened or actual government enforcement action could also generate adverse publicity and require that we devote substantial resources that could otherwise be used in other aspects of our business. Any of the foregoing could harm our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. We do not carry earthquake insurance. Earthquakes, wildfires or other natural disasters could severely disrupt our operations, and could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. The disaster recovery and business continuity plans we have in place currently are limited and are unlikely to prove adequate in the event of a serious disaster or similar event. We may incur substantial expenses as a result of the limited nature of our disaster recovery and business continuity plans, which, particularly when taken together with our lack of earthquake insurance, could have a material adverse effect on our business. In the ordinary course of our business, we collect, store and transmit large amounts of confidential information, including intellectual property, proprietary business information and personal information. It is critical that we do so in a secure manner to maintain the privacy, security, confidentiality and integrity of such confidential information. We have established physical, electronic and organizational measures designed to safeguard and secure our systems to prevent a data compromise, and rely on commercially available systems, software, tools and monitoring to provide security for our information technology systems and the processing, transmission and storage of digital information. Our internal information technology systems and infrastructure, and those of any future collaborators and our contractors, consultants, vendors and other third parties on which we rely, are vulnerable to damage or unauthorized access or use resulting from computer viruses, malware, natural disasters, terrorism, war, telecommunication and electrical failures, cyber-attacks or cyber-intrusions over the Internet, denial or degradation of service attacks, ransomware, hacking, phishing and other social engineering attacks, attachments to emails, persons inside our organization or persons with access to systems inside our organization. The prevalent use of mobile devices that access confidential information also increases the risk of lost or stolen devices, security incidents and data security breaches, which could lead to the loss of confidential information or other intellectual property. A number of our employees work remotely, which may create additional opportunities for cybercriminals to exploit vulnerabilities. Furthermore, because the techniques used to obtain unauthorized access to, or to sabotage, systems change frequently and often are not recognized until launched against a target, we may be unable to anticipate these techniques or implement adequate preventative measures. We may also experience security breaches that may remain undetected for an extended period. Although we do not believe that we have experienced any material system failure or security breach to date, if such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations or those of our third-party CROs, vendors and other contractors and consultants, it could result in a material disruption of our development programs and our business operations. To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our data or applications, or those of our third-party CROs, vendors and other contractors and consultants, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information or patient information, we could incur liability and the further development and commercialization of our product candidates could be delayed. Likewise, we rely on our third-party research institution collaborators for research and development of our product candidates and other third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates and to conduct clinical trials and similar events relating to their computer systems could also have a material adverse effect on our business. Any security incident or disruption event that leads to unauthorized access, use, or disclosure of personal information, including personal information regarding our clinical trial subjects or employees, could harm our reputation, compel us to comply with federal and/or state breach notification laws and foreign law equivalents, subject us to mandatory corrective action and otherwise subject us to liability under laws and regulations that protect the privacy and security of personal information, which could result in significant legal and financial exposure and reputational damages that could potentially have an adverse effect on our business. The costs related to significant security breaches or disruptions could also be material and exceed the limits of any applicable insurance we may maintain against such risks. If the information technology systems of our third-party CROs, vendors and other contractors and consultants become subject to disruptions or security breaches, we may have insufficient recourse against such third parties and we may have to expend significant resources to mitigate the impact of such an event, and to develop and implement protections to prevent future events of this nature from occurring. Accordingly, our efforts to protect and enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license, and we may be at heightened risk of losing our proprietary intellectual property rights around the world, including outside of such countries, to the extent such theft or intrusion destroy the proprietary nature of our intellectual property. As much of this technology is complex, there may be future errors, defects or performance problems, including when we update our technology or integrate new technology to expand and enhance our capabilities. Our technology may malfunction or suffer from defects that become apparent only after extended use. The integrity of our technology may also be compromised as a result of third-party cyber-attacks, such as hacking, spear phishing campaigns and denial of service attacks, which are negatively impacting companies. In addition, our operations depend on our ability to protect our information technology systems against damage from third-party cyber-attacks, fire, power loss, water, earthquakes, telecommunications failures and similar unexpected AEs. Disruptions in our website, internal systems and clinical research or network systems could result from a number of factors, including unknown technical defects, insufficient capacity, the failure of our third-party providers to provide continuous and uninterrupted service and unusual volume in traffic for our internal systems. Such disruptions would be most impactful if they occurred in connection with our data storage and clinical research data and may impact accessibility to our clinical research and operations. While we maintain disaster recovery capabilities to return to normal operation in a timely manner, and we deploy multiple parallel instances of our applications across multiple computer resources, we do not have a fully redundant system that includes an instantaneous recovery capability. In the event we experience significant disruptions, we may be unable to repair our systems in an efficient and timely manner, which could have an adverse impact on our business. Any failure of our technology or systems could result in an adverse impact on our business.S.C. § 201, the United States Travel Act, the USA PATRIOT Act and other state and national anti-bribery and anti-money laundering laws in countries in which we conduct activities. Anti-corruption laws are interpreted broadly and prohibit companies and their employees, agents, third-party intermediaries, joint venture partners and collaborators from authorizing, promising, offering or providing, directly or indirectly, improper payments or benefits to recipients in the public or private sector. We may have direct or indirect interactions with officials and employees of government agencies or government-affiliated hospitals, universities and other organizations. In addition, we may engage third party intermediaries to promote our clinical research activities abroad and/or to obtain necessary permits, licenses and other regulatory approvals. We can be held liable for the corrupt or other illegal activities of these third-party intermediaries, our employees, representatives, contractors, partners and agents, even if we do not explicitly authorize or have actual knowledge of such activities. If any subpoenas, investigations or other enforcement actions are launched, or governmental or other sanctions are imposed, or if we do not prevail in any possible civil or criminal litigation, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially harmed. In addition, responding to any action will likely result in a materially significant diversion of management’s attention and resources and significant defense and compliance costs and other professional fees. In certain cases, enforcement authorities may even cause us to appoint an independent compliance monitor which can result in added costs and administrative burdens. We will also need to carefully navigate the new administration’s implementation of the FCPA. On February 10, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order directing the Attorney General to review the guidelines and policies governing FCPA investigations and enforcement actions. Per the Executive Order, this review will result in new DOJ FCPA guidelines intended to enhance American economic competitiveness and to safeguard national security interests. During the 180-day review period, any new FCPA investigations and enforcement actions are to be suspended absent authorization from the Attorney General, and all existing FCPA investigations and enforcement actions will be reviewed. Additionally, after the Attorney General issues revised guidelines, the Executive Order directs her to assess whether “remedial measures” related to past FCPA actions are warranted.S. nationals, of information classified for national security purposes, as well as certain products and technical data relating to those products. Further, the provision of benefits or advantages to physicians to induce or encourage the prescription, recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order, or use of medicinal products is prohibited in the EU. Infringement of these laws could result in substantial fines and imprisonment. Moreover, agreements with physicians often must be the subject of prior notification and approval by the physician’s employer, his or her competent professional organization and/or the regulatory authorities of the individual EU Member States. These requirements are provided in the national laws, industry codes, or professional codes of conduct applicable in the EU Member States. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines, or imprisonment. 94 Risks Related to Doing Business in China Changes in U.S. and international trade policies, particularly with respect to China, may adversely impact our business and operating results. The U.S. government has recently made statements and taken certain actions that may lead to potential changes to U.S. and international trade policies, including imposing several rounds of tariffs and export control restrictions affecting certain products manufactured in China, and most recently, proposing legislation that, if enacted would restrict trade with certain Chinese companies that provide biopharmaceutical research, development, and manufacturing services. Recently both China and the United States have each imposed tariffs indicating the potential for further trade barriers, including the U.S. Commerce Department adding numerous Chinese entities to its “unverified list,” which requires U.S. exporters to go through more procedures before exporting goods to such entities. It is unknown whether and to what extent new tariffs, export controls, or other new laws or regulations will be adopted, or the effect that any such actions would have on us or our industry. Sustained uncertainty about, or the further escalation of, trade and political tensions between the United States and China could result in a disadvantageous research and manufacturing environment in China, particularly for U.S. based companies, including retaliatory restrictions that hinder or potentially inhibit our ability to rely on CDMOs and other service providers that operate in China. For example, proposed legislation has been introduced in Congress that could prohibit, among other things, the use of U.S. government executive agency contract, grant, or loan funding to procure or obtain, or enter into, extend or renew contracts involving the use of certain equipment or services produced or provided by certain Chinese companies, including our current CDMO, WuXi Biologics, which could cause us to reevaluate our relationship with our current CDMO. Further, some of our manufacturers and suppliers are located in China. Trade tensions and conflicts between the United States and China have been escalating in recent years and, as such, we are exposed to the possibility of product supply disruption and increased costs and expenses in the event of changes to the laws, rules, regulations and policies of the governments of the United States or China, or due to geopolitical unrest and unstable economic conditions. Certain Chinese biotechnology companies may become subject to trade restrictions, sanctions, other regulatory requirements or proposed legislation by the U.S. government, which could restrict or even prohibit our ability to work with such entities, thereby potentially disrupting their supply of material to us. For example, in February 2024, U.S. lawmakers called for investigations into and the imposition of possible trade sanctions against certain Chinese biotechnology companies, including WuXi AppTec and WuXi Biologics, or collectively WuXi, over alleged ties to the Chinese military. Escalating tensions between the United States and China may prevent or hinder the export of materials or technical information between us and our CDMO and third parties, such as pharmaceutical partners. In addition, in September 2024 during the 118th Congress, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the BIOSECURE Act (H.R. 8333). This bill names the following as biotechnology companies of concern: BGI, MGI, Complete Genomics, WuXi AppTec, and WuXi Biologics. The Senate advanced a substantially similar bill (S. 3558) but it did not pass. The Senate bill named the following as biotechnology companies of concern: BGI, MGI, Complete Genomics, WuXi AppTec, and any subsidiary, parent affiliate, or successor of such entities. If this legislation had been enacted into law, and while both bills had certain grandfather provision, the legislation would have potentially restricted the ability of U.S. biotechnology companies like ours to purchase services or products from, or otherwise collaborate with, specifically named Chinese biotechnology companies, including WuXi, and it would have authorized the U.S. government to impose such restrictions on entities' transactions with additional Chinese biotechnology companies as a condition of U.S. government contract, grant and loan funding. We anticipate these bills will be reintroduced during the 119th Congress but, as of February 20, 2025, they have not been introduced in either chamber. If these bills become law, or similar laws are passed, they would have the potential to severely restrict the ability of companies like ours to contract with certain Chinese biotechnology companies of concern without losing the ability to contract with, or otherwise received funding from, the U.S. government. Such disruptions could have adverse effects on the development of our product candidates and our business operations. 95 Any unfavorable government policies on international trade, such as export controls, capital controls or tariffs, may increase the cost of manufacturing our product candidates and platform materials, affect the demand for our drug products (if and once approved), the competitive position of our product candidates, and import or export of raw materials and finished product candidate used in our and our collaborators’ preclinical studies and clinical trials, particularly with respect to any product candidates and materials that we import from China, including pursuant to our manufacturing service arrangements with WuXi. If any new tariffs, export controls, legislation and/or regulations are implemented, or if existing trade agreements are renegotiated or, in particular, if either the U.S. or Chinese government takes retaliatory trade actions due to the recent trade tension, such changes could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. China’s economic, political and social conditions, as well as governmental policies, could affect our ability to operate our business. A significant portion of our manufacturing operations is currently conducted in China. Accordingly, our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects may be influenced to a significant degree by economic, political, legal and social conditions in China as well as China’s economic, political, legal and social conditions in relation to the rest of the world. China’s economy differs from the economies of developed countries in many respects, including with respect to the amount of government involvement, level of development, growth rate, control of foreign exchange and allocation of resources. China’s government has implemented various measures to encourage economic development and guide the allocation of resources. Some of these measures may have a negative effect on us. For example, our financial condition and results of operations may be adversely affected by government control over capital investments or changes in tax regulations that are currently applicable to us. In addition, in the past, China’s government implemented certain measures, including interest rate increases, to control the pace of economic growth. These measures may cause decreased economic activity in China, which may adversely affect our business and results of operation. More generally, if the business environment in China deteriorates from the perspective of domestic or international investment, our business in China may also be adversely affected. The pharmaceutical industry in China is subject to comprehensive government regulation and supervision, encompassing the approval, registration, manufacturing, packaging, licensing and marketing of new drugs. In recent years, the regulatory framework in China regarding the pharmaceutical industry has undergone significant changes, and we expect that it will continue to undergo significant changes. Any such changes or amendments may result in increased compliance costs on our business or cause delays in or prevent the successful development of our product candidates in China and reduce the current benefits we believe are available to us from developing and manufacturing drugs in China. PRC authorities have become increasingly vigilant in enforcing laws in the pharmaceutical industry and any failure by us or our partners to maintain compliance with applicable laws and regulations or obtain and maintain required licenses and permits may result in the suspension or termination of our business activities in China. We believe our strategy and approach are aligned with the PRC government’s regulatory policies, but we cannot ensure that our strategy and approach will continue to be aligned. Our manufacturing operations primarily occur in China and involve the use of hazardous materials, including chemical materials. Our operations also produce hazardous waste products. We are therefore subject to PRC laws and regulations concerning the discharge of waste water, gaseous waste and solid waste during our processes of research and development of our product candidates. We engage competent third-party contractors for the transfer and disposal of these materials and wastes. Despite our intention to do so, we may not comply fully with environmental regulations at all times. Any violation of these regulations may result in substantial fines, criminal sanctions, revocations of operating permits, shutdown of our facilities and obligations to take corrective measures. We cannot completely eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials and wastes. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from the use or discharge of hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil, administrative or criminal fines and penalties. Furthermore, China may take steps towards the adoption of more stringent environmental regulations. Due to the possibility of unanticipated regulatory or other developments, the amount and timing of future environmental expenditures may vary substantially from those currently anticipated. If there is any unanticipated change in the environmental regulations, we may need to incur substantial capital expenditures to install, replace, upgrade or supplement our manufacturing facility and equipment or make operational changes to limit any adverse impact or potential adverse impact on the environment in order to comply with new environmental protection laws and regulations. If such costs become prohibitively expensive, we may be forced to cease certain aspects of our business operations. In February 2012, SAFE promulgated the Notices on Issues concerning the Foreign Exchange Administration for Domestic Individuals Participating in Stock Incentive Plans of Overseas Publicly Listed Companies, or the Stock Option Rules, which replaced the Application Procedures of Foreign Exchange Administration for Domestic Individuals Participating in Employee Stock Ownership Plan or Stock Option Plans of Overseas Publicly Listed Companies issued by SAFE in March 2007. Pursuant to the Stock Option Rules, if a PRC resident participates in any stock incentive plan of an overseas publicly listed company, a qualified PRC domestic agent must, among other things, file on behalf of such participant an application with SAFE to conduct the SAFE registration with respect to such stock incentive plan and obtain approval for an annual allowance with respect to the purchase of foreign exchange in connection with the exercise or sale of stock options or stock such participant holds. Such participating PRC residents’ foreign exchange income received from the sale of stock and dividends distributed by the overseas publicly listed company must be fully remitted into a PRC collective foreign currency account opened and managed by the PRC agent before distribution to such participants. We and our PRC resident employees who have been granted stock options or other stock-based incentives of ours are subject to the Stock Option Rules. If we or our PRC resident participants fail to comply with these regulations, we and/or our PRC resident participants may be subject to fines and legal sanctions. In particular, the trading prices for pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have been highly volatile. These factors include those discussed in this Item 1A.

S. These broad market fluctuations may adversely affect the trading price or liquidity of our common stock. We may fail to comply with the rules that apply to public companies, including Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or Section 404, which could result in sanctions or other penalties that could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Our management and other personnel need to devote a substantial amount of time to ensure that we comply with all of these requirements. Moreover, the reporting requirements, rules and regulations increase our legal and financial compliance costs and make some activities more time-consuming and costly. These reporting requirements, rules and regulations, coupled with the increase in potential litigation exposure associated with being a public company, also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified persons to serve on our board of directors or board committees or to serve as executive officers, or to obtain certain types of insurance, including directors’ and officers’ insurance, on acceptable terms. Section 404 requires an annual management assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. However, for so long as we remain an emerging growth company as defined in the JOBS Act, we intend to take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements that are available to emerging growth companies, including, but not limited to, not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404. Once we are no longer an emerging growth company or, if prior to such date, we opt to no longer take advantage of the applicable exemption, we will be required to include an opinion from our independent registered public accounting firm on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. Furthermore, if we identify any material weaknesses, or even if we do not identify a material weakness but one exists, we may not detect those errors on a timely basis and our financial statements may be materially misstated. We or our independent registered public accounting firm may not be able to conclude on an ongoing basis that we have effective internal control over financial reporting, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects, cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information and cause the trading price of our stock to fall. In addition, as a public company we will be required to file accurate and timely quarterly and annual reports with the SEC under the Exchange Act. In order to report our results of operations and financial statements on an accurate and timely basis, we will depend in part on CROs and other third parties to provide timely and accurate notice of their costs to us. Any failure to report our financial results on an accurate and timely basis could result in sanctions, lawsuits, delisting of our shares from the Nasdaq Global Market or other adverse consequences that would materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. As a result, comparing our operating results on a period-to-period basis may not be meaningful. Investors should not rely on our past results as an indication of our future performance. If our revenue or operating results fall below the expectations of analysts or investors or below any forecasts we may provide to the market, or if any forecasts we provide to the market are below the expectations of analysts or investors, the price of our common stock could decline substantially. Such a stock price decline could occur even when we have met any previously publicly stated revenue or earnings guidance we may provide. In addition, under current tax law, federal NOLs generated in periods after December 31, 2017 may be carried forward indefinitely but in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2020, may only be used to offset 80% of our taxable income. As a result, our ability to use our pre-change NOLs and tax credits to offset future taxable income, if any, could be subject to limitations. Similar provisions of state tax law may also apply. As a result, even if we attain profitability, we may be unable to use a material portion of our NOLs and tax credits. Under Section 203, a corporation may not, in general, engage in a business combination with any holder of 15% or more of its capital stock unless the holder has held the stock for three years or, among other exceptions, the board of directors has approved the transaction. Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws also provide that the federal district courts of the United States of America are the exclusive forum for the resolution of any complaint asserting a cause of action against us or any of our directors, officers, employees or agents and arising under the Securities Act. Nothing in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws precludes stockholders that assert claims under the Exchange Act from bringing such claims in state or federal court, subject to applicable law. Furthermore, the enforceability of similar choice of forum provisions in other companies’ certificates of incorporation has been challenged in legal proceedings, and it is possible that a court could find these types of provisions to be inapplicable or unenforceable. While the Delaware courts have determined that such choice of forum provisions are facially valid, a stockholder may nevertheless seek to bring a claim in a venue other than those designated in the exclusive forum provisions, and there can be no assurance that such provisions will be enforced by a court in those other jurisdictions. If a court were to find the choice of forum provision that is contained in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions, which could adversely affect our business and financial condition. We currently intend to invest our future earnings, if any, to fund our growth. Therefore, you are not likely to receive any dividends on your common stock for the foreseeable future. Since we do not intend to pay dividends, your ability to receive a return on your investment will depend on any future appreciation in the market value of our common stock. There is no guarantee that our common stock will appreciate or even maintain the price at which our holders have purchased it. We do not have any control over these analysts or what they publish, and we may have limited opportunity to communicate with them during certain times of the year. There can be no assurance that analysts will continue to cover us, cover us accurately, or provide favorable coverage. In the event any of the analysts who cover us issue an adverse or misleading opinion, or fail to correct an error in their reports or statements, about us, our business model, our intellectual property or our stock performance, or if our clinical trials and operating results fail to meet the expectations of analysts, our stock price would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of us or fail to publish reports on us regularly, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which in turn could cause our stock price or trading volume to decline. As a result, our stockholders would experience immediate dilution upon the purchase of any shares of our common stock sold at such discount. In addition, as opportunities present themselves, we may enter into financing or similar arrangements in the future, including the issuance of debt securities, preferred stock or common stock. If we issue common stock or securities convertible into common stock, our common stockholders would experience additional dilution and, as a result, our stock price may decline. We may be the target of this type of litigation in the future. Regardless of the merits or the ultimate results of such litigation, securities litigation brought against us could result in substantial costs and divert our management’s attention from other business concerns. 102 We are an “emerging growth company,” and as a result of the reduced disclosure and governance requirements applicable to emerging growth companies, our common stock may be less attractive to investors. In addition, as an “emerging growth company,” the JOBS Act allows us to delay adoption of new or revised accounting pronouncements applicable to public companies until such pronouncements are made applicable to private companies. We have elected to use this extended transition period under the JOBS Act. As a result, our consolidated financial statements may not be comparable to the financial statements of issuers who are required to comply with the effective dates for new or revised accounting standards that are applicable to public companies, which may make comparison of our financials to those of other public companies more difficult. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock price may be more volatile. We may take advantage of these reporting exemptions until we are no longer an emerging growth company. We will remain an emerging growth company until the earlier of (1) the last day of the fiscal year following the fifth anniversary of the consummation of our IPO, (2) the last day of the fiscal year in which we have total annual gross revenue of at least $1.235 billion, (3) the last day of the fiscal year in which we are deemed to be a “large accelerated filer” as defined in Rule 12b-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, which would occur if the market value of our common stock held by non-affiliates exceeded $700.0 million as of the last business day of the second fiscal quarter of such year, or (4) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt securities during the prior three-year period. While the economic impact brought by, and the duration of, the COVID-19 pandemic was difficult to assess or predict, we know that potential impacts from any potential future global pandemic or similar public health event include impediment to the development of our product candidates, disruption in our supply chains, delays in our clinical trials, reduced productivity of our employees, reduced access to capital or limitations to our business development activities. In the event of a future pandemic or similar public health events, potential patients in our ongoing or planned clinical trials may choose to not enroll, not participate in follow-up clinical visits or drop out of the trials. Further, some patients may not be able or willing to comply with clinical trial protocols if quarantines impede patient movement or interrupts healthcare services. In addition, ongoing or planned clinical trials may also be impacted by interruptions or delays in the operations of the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities, in the event of a future pandemic or similar public health events. 103 We may also encounter a shortage in supplies of, or in delays in shipping, our study drug or other components of the clinical trial vital for successful conduct of the trial. Further, the successful conduct of our clinical trials depends on retrieving laboratory, imaging and other data from patients. Any failure by the vendors we work with to send us such data could impair the progress of such clinical trials. These events could delay our clinical trials, increase the cost of completing our clinical trials and negatively impact the integrity, reliability or robustness of the data from our clinical trials. Quarantines, shelter-in-place and similar government orders, or the perception that such orders, shutdowns or other restrictions on the conduct of business operations could occur, which could disrupt the supply chain for our product candidates or other goods or services used in our clinical trials. A global financial crisis or a global or regional political disruption could cause extreme volatility in the capital and credit markets. A weak or declining economy or political disruption could also strain our manufacturers or suppliers, possibly resulting in supply disruption, or cause our customers to delay making payments for our potential drugs, if approved. Any of the foregoing could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects, and we cannot anticipate all of the ways in which the political or economic climate and financial market conditions could adversely impact our business. Unresolved Staff Comments. Cybersecurity. The audit committee of our board of directors is responsible for the general oversight around cybersecurity-related matters, while our management is responsible for the day-to-day operations around the assessment and management of any cybersecurity risks we might face. Our board of directors and the audit committee, in consultation with management, established and maintain robust procedures and internal controls around cybersecurity. At each regularly scheduled audit committee meeting, our chief financial officer provides an update on our cybersecurity position, and where necessary, the audit committee then provides an update to the board of directors. Our incident response process also contemplates that the executive team will notify the audit committee of a material cybersecurity incident. We engage an experienced consultant to oversee the day-to-day functions of cybersecurity management, including proactive reviews of activity logs, regular vulnerability scans, and, where applicable, effective incident response. Our expert consultant has over 30 years of experience in the cybersecurity space, and reports to the chief financial officer. We also engage a highly qualified third-party cybersecurity assessor to conduct annual threat assessments and penetration tests. To date, we have not encountered cybersecurity incidents that have materially impacted our operations or financial standing. 104 .

Recently Filed

Click on a ticker to see risk factors

Ticker *	File Date
CLRI	4 days, 17 hours ago
VBIX	4 days, 20 hours ago
NEON	4 days, 20 hours ago
CHCI	4 days, 20 hours ago
ENBP	4 days, 20 hours ago
UG	4 days, 20 hours ago
FSEA	4 days, 20 hours ago
PULM	4 days, 21 hours ago
CMRX	4 days, 23 hours ago
DG	4 days, 23 hours ago
GNLN	5 days, 7 hours ago
AXDX	5 days, 8 hours ago
ROLR	5 days, 8 hours ago
ARMP	5 days, 9 hours ago
CXM	5 days, 9 hours ago
RXT	5 days, 9 hours ago
AEVA	5 days, 10 hours ago
HD	5 days, 11 hours ago
MDB	5 days, 11 hours ago
MGRX	5 days, 12 hours ago
FVR	5 days, 12 hours ago
BFRI	5 days, 12 hours ago
MTVA	5 days, 12 hours ago
SNTI	5 days, 12 hours ago
BIOA	5 days, 12 hours ago
AWX	5 days, 12 hours ago
AMPX	5 days, 12 hours ago
ELDN	5 days, 12 hours ago
AEO	5 days, 13 hours ago
FFNW	5 days, 13 hours ago
SNWV	5 days, 13 hours ago
IMRX	5 days, 13 hours ago
OPRX	5 days, 13 hours ago
RLEA	5 days, 13 hours ago
UBFO	5 days, 13 hours ago
CBUS	5 days, 13 hours ago
ANRO	5 days, 13 hours ago
SHIM	5 days, 13 hours ago
AUTL	5 days, 13 hours ago
PCSA	5 days, 13 hours ago
QUBT	5 days, 13 hours ago
TTNP	5 days, 13 hours ago
WWR	5 days, 13 hours ago
CDIO	5 days, 13 hours ago
YHNA	5 days, 13 hours ago
VTVT	5 days, 13 hours ago
DXLG	5 days, 13 hours ago
TERN	5 days, 13 hours ago
ERAS	5 days, 13 hours ago
ASMB	5 days, 13 hours ago

OTHER DATASETS

House Trading

Dashboard

Corporate Flights

Dashboard

App Ratings

Dashboard

Strategies

Alerts

Browse Data

Risk Factors Dashboard

View risk factors by ticker

Search filings by term

Risk Factors - TERN

-New additions in green
-Changes in blue
-Hover to see similar sentence in last filing

$TERN Risk Factor changes from 00/03/27/23/2023 to 00/03/20/25/2025

Recently Filed

OTHER DATASETS

House Trading

Corporate Flights

App Ratings

TRADE SMARTER

TRADE SMARTER

Strategies

Alerts

Browse Data

Risk Factors Dashboard

View risk factors by ticker

Search filings by term

Risk Factors - TERN

-New additions in green-Changes in blue-Hover to see similar sentence in last filing

$TERN Risk Factor changes from 00/03/27/23/2023 to 00/03/20/25/2025

Recently Filed

OTHER DATASETS

House Trading

Corporate Flights

App Ratings

TRADE SMARTER

TRADE SMARTER

-New additions in green
-Changes in blue
-Hover to see similar sentence in last filing