Inhibrx Biosciences 424B3Prospectus supplement

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424(b)(3)

Registration No. 333-280127

PROSPECTUS

INHIBRX BIOSCIENCES, INC.

2,449,921 shares of Common Stock

This prospectus relates to the proposed resale or other disposition from time to time of an aggregate of up to 2,449,921 shares of Inhibrx Biosciences, Inc., or the Company, common stock, $0.0001 par value per share, or Common Stock, including (i) 300,146 shares of Common Stock held by the selling stockholders who have registration rights pursuant to the Registration Rights Agreement, dated May 29, 2024, by and among the Company and the holders listed thereto, or the Registration Rights Agreement, (ii) 991,849 shares of Common Stock that are issuable upon the exercise of warrants to purchase shares of Common Stock at an exercise price of $0.0001 per share, subject to proportional adjustments in the event of stock splits or combinations or similar events, or the Warrants, held by the selling stockholders who have registration rights pursuant to the Registration Rights Agreement, and (iii) 1,157,926 shares of Common Stock currently held by Inhibrx, Inc., an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Sanofi S.A., or Sanofi. The shares of Common Stock and Warrants were issued in connection with the sale of Inhibrx, Inc.’s INBRX-101, which was completed on May 30, 2024, as described in this prospectus.

The Company is not selling any securities under this prospectus and will not receive any of the proceeds from the sale of securities by the selling stockholders, except that the Company may receive up to approximately $100 in aggregate gross proceeds from the exercise of the Warrants, if the Warrants are exercised for cash (and, as applicable, not on a cashless basis), based on the per share exercise price of the Warrants.

Our registration of the resale of the shares of Common Stock covered by this prospectus does not mean that the selling stockholders will offer or sell all or any of the shares of Common Stock. The selling stockholders or their assignees or successors-in-interest may offer and sell the shares of Common Stock described in this prospectus in a number of different ways and at varying prices. We provide more information about how a selling stockholders may sell its shares of Common Stock in the section entitled “Plan of Distribution” appearing elsewhere in this prospectus. We will pay the expenses incurred in registering the securities covered by the prospectus, including legal and accounting fees.

Our Common Stock is quoted on the Nasdaq Global Market under the symbol “INBX.” On June 17, 2024, the last reported sale price of our Common Stock was $14.19 per share.

We are an “emerging growth company” as that term is used in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012, and, as such, we have elected to comply with certain reduced public company reporting requirements for this prospectus and future filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Unless the context otherwise requires or as otherwise noted, we use the terms “Company,” “we,” “us,” and “our” in this prospectus to refer to Inhibrx Biosciences, Inc. and its subsidiaries taken as a whole.

You should rely only on the information contained in this prospectus. We have not, and the selling stockholders have not, authorized anyone to provide you with additional or different information. These securities are not being offered in any jurisdiction where the offer is not permitted. You should assume that the information in this prospectus is accurate only as of the date of the document regardless of the time of delivery of this prospectus or of any sale of our Common Stock.

Unless otherwise indicated, information in this prospectus concerning economic conditions, our industry, our markets and our competitive position is based on a variety of sources, including information from third-party industry analysts and publications and our own estimates and research. Some of the industry and market data contained in this prospectus are based on third-party industry publications. This information involves a number of assumptions, estimates and limitations.

The industry publications, surveys and forecasts and other public information generally indicate or suggest that their information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable. We believe this information is reliable as of the applicable date of its publication, however, we have not independently verified the accuracy or completeness of the information included in or assumptions relied on in these third-party publications. In addition, the market and industry data and forecasts that may be included in this prospectus, any post-effective amendment or any prospectus supplement may involve estimates, assumptions and other risks and uncertainties and are subject to change based on various factors, including those discussed under the heading “Risk Factors” contained in this prospectus, any post-effective amendment and the applicable prospectus supplement. Accordingly, investors should not place undue reliance on this information.

On May 29, 2024, Inhibrx, Inc., or the Former Parent, completed a distribution to holders of its shares of common stock of 92% of the issued and outstanding shares of common stock of the Company (the registrant pursuant to the registration statement of which this prospectus forms a part), or the Distribution. Prior to such Distribution, the Former Parent entered into a series of internal restructuring transactions, or the Separation, with the Company, pursuant to which the Company acquired the assets and liabilities and corporate infrastructure associated with INBRX-105, INBRX-106 and INBRX-109, including its discovery pipeline. As described in this prospectus, the Former Parent and the Company were parties to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of January 22, 2024, or the Merger Agreement, by and among the Former Parent, Aventis Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, which we refer to as Acquirer, and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sanofi, and Art Acquisition Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation, which we refer to as Merger Sub, and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Acquirer, and the Separation and Distribution Agreement, dated as of January 22, 2024, or the Distribution Agreement, by and among the Former Parent, the Company and Acquirer. The Merger Agreement provided for the acquisition by Acquirer of the Former Parent, or the Merger, which was accomplished through the merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company with the Company continuing as the surviving entity.

The Company was incorporated on January 8, 2024 under the laws of the State of Delaware as a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of the Former Parent and had no significant operations or activity other than its initial issuance of shares for a nominal consideration and entry into the Distribution Agreement. The Separation and Distribution was treated as a reverse spin-off for financial accounting and reporting purposes in accordance with ASC 505-60, Spinoffs and Reverse Spinoffs. The Company has determined that the Former Parent represents the predecessor entity to the Company. Therefore, the historical financial statements and information presented in the Management's

Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for the Former Parent herein and in the Company's future filings, with respect to periods prior to the Separation and Distribution, will be represented by the historical consolidated financial statements and business of the Former Parent, each as currently available without giving subsequent effect of the Distribution and Merger. The financial information furnished in the “Unaudited Pro Forma Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements” section presents the Company's operations by removing the assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses legally divested related to the Former Parent's business from the historical financial statements of the Former Parent as available at the date of the registration statement of which this prospectus is a part, as well as incremental autonomous entity adjustments necessary to present the Company as if it were a historically standalone entity. Additionally, we have also provided the historical combined financial statements and related notes of the Company and Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations of the Company. Refer to the “Unaudited Pro Forma Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements” section for further details on adjustments and the basis of presentation included elsewhere within this prospectus.

Risks Related to Our Financial Condition and Need for Additional Capital

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company. To date, we have financed our operations through equity and debt financings, license and milestone revenue and grants. We have incurred significant recurring operating losses since our inception. Our net loss for the three months ended March 31, 2024 was $49.3 million. We expect to incur additional losses in future years as we execute our plan to continue our discovery, research and development activities, including the manufacturing of and ongoing and planned preclinical and clinical development and commercialization of our therapeutic candidates. We are unable to predict the extent of any future losses or when we will become profitable, if ever. Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would decrease the value of our Company and could impair our ability to raise capital, maintain our research and development efforts, expand our business or continue our operations. A decline in the value of our Company could also cause you to lose all or part of your investment.

We have devoted substantially all of our financial resources and efforts to developing our therapeutic candidates, identifying potential therapeutic candidates and conducting nonclinical studies and clinical trials. We are still in the development stage for all of our therapeutic candidates, and while we have demonstrated an ability to successfully conduct and complete certain of our clinical trials, we have yet to demonstrate an ability to conduct pivotal clinical trials, obtain marketing approval, manufacture a commercial scale product or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. Consequently, we have no meaningful operations upon which to evaluate our business and predictions about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had more experience developing therapeutic candidates. Our ability to generate revenue and achieve profitability depends in large part on our ability, alone or with license partners, to achieve milestones and to successfully complete the development of, obtain the necessary marketing approvals for, and commercialize, our therapeutic candidates. Even if we achieve development or commercial milestones, generate product royalties or generate product sales, we may never achieve or sustain profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. We do not anticipate generating revenue from sales of products for the foreseeable future. Our ability to generate future revenue from product sales depends heavily on our success in:

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with biological product development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when, or if, we will be able to achieve profitability. If we are required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, or other comparable foreign authorities to perform nonclinical studies or clinical trials in addition to those we currently anticipate, or if there are any delays in completing our clinical trials or the development of any of our therapeutic candidates, our expenses could increase and revenue could be further delayed.

As of May 30, 2024, we had $255.4 million in cash and cash equivalents. We expect our expenses to increase in future years as we execute our plan to continue our discovery, research and development activities, including the ongoing and planned preclinical and clinical development and commercialization of our therapeutic candidates. Identifying potential therapeutic candidates and conducting preclinical testing and clinical trials are time consuming, expensive and uncertain processes that take years to complete, and we may never generate the necessary data or results required to obtain marketing approval and achieve product sales. In addition, our therapeutic candidates, if approved, may not achieve commercial success.

We believe that our existing cash and cash equivalents will be sufficient to fund our planned operations through at least the 12-month period following the date of this prospectus. However, changing circumstances or inaccurate estimates by us may cause us to use capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to spend more money than currently expected because of circumstances beyond our control. For example, our current and planned preclinical studies and clinical trials for our current therapeutic candidates or other therapeutic candidates we may seek to develop may encounter technical, enrollment or other issues that could cause our development costs to increase more than we expect, or we could expand our clinical trials to additional indications which could increase clinical trial expenses. Because successful development of our therapeutic candidates is uncertain, we are unable to estimate the actual funds we will require to complete research and development and commercialize our therapeutic candidates. Our ability to raise additional funds will depend on financial, economic and market conditions and other factors, over which we may have no or limited control. In addition, our ability to obtain future funding when needed through equity financings, debt financings or strategic collaborations may be challenging in light of recent market and macroeconomic conditions, which have been particularly challenging for research and development life science companies.

If adequate funds are not available on commercially acceptable terms when needed, we may be forced to delay, reduce or terminate the development or commercialization of all or part of our research programs or clinical therapeutic candidates, or we may be unable to take advantage of future business opportunities. In addition, any additional capital raising efforts may divert our management from their day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our current and future therapeutic candidates.

Until such time as we can generate substantial revenue from product sales, if ever, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of equity and debt financings, strategic collaborations and license and development

agreements. We do not have any committed external source of funds. To the extent that we raise additional capital by issuing equity securities, our existing stockholders’ ownership may experience substantial dilution, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a stockholder. Equity and debt financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as redeeming our shares, making investments, incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends. The incurrence of indebtedness could result in increased fixed payment obligations and we may be required to agree to certain restrictive covenants therein, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt, limitations on our ability to acquire, sell or license intellectual property rights and other operating restrictions that could adversely affect our ability to conduct our business.

If we raise additional capital through collaborations, strategic alliances or third-party licensing agreements, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our intellectual property, future revenue streams, research programs or therapeutics candidates, or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional capital through equity or debt financings when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or future commercialization efforts, or grant rights to develop and market therapeutic candidates that we would otherwise develop and market ourselves.

Inflation has the potential to adversely affect our liquidity, business, financial condition and results of operations by increasing our overall cost structure. The existence of inflation in the economy has resulted in, and may continue to result in, higher interest rates and capital costs, shipping costs, supply shortages, increased costs of labor, weakening exchange rates and other similar effects. Recently, inflation has increased throughout the U.S. economy. Inflation can adversely affect us by increasing the costs of clinical trials and research, the development of our therapeutic candidates, administration and other costs of doing business. We may experience increases in the prices of labor and other costs of doing business. In an inflationary environment, cost increases may outpace our expectations, causing us to use our cash and other liquid assets faster than forecasted. If this happens, we may need to raise additional capital to fund our operations, which may not be available in sufficient amounts or on reasonable terms, if at all, sooner than expected.

Recent and potential future disruptions in access to bank deposits or lending commitments due to bank failure have contributed to increased volatility and could materially and adversely affect our liquidity, our business and financial condition. The closures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank and their placement into receivership with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or FDIC, created bank-specific and broader financial institution liquidity risk and concerns. Although the Department of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and the FDIC jointly released a statement that depositors at Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank would have access to their funds, even those in excess of the standard FDIC insurance limits, future adverse developments with respect to specific financial institutions or the broader financial services industry may lead to market-wide liquidity shortages. The failure of any bank in which we deposit our funds could reduce the amount of cash we have available for our operations or delay our ability to access such funds. Any such failure may increase the possibility of a sustained deterioration of financial market liquidity, or illiquidity at clearing, cash management and/or custodial financial institutions. In the event we have a commercial relationship with a bank that has failed or is otherwise distressed, we may experience delays or other issues in meeting our financial obligations. If other banks and financial institutions enter receivership or become insolvent in the future in response to financial conditions affecting the banking system and financial markets, our ability to access our cash and cash equivalents and investments may be threatened and could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

Risks Related to the Development, Clinical Testing and Commercialization of Our Therapeutic Candidates

Our two therapeutic candidates are still currently in clinical trials (ozekibart (INBRX-109) and INBRX-106). We have no products on the market and our ability to achieve and sustain profitability depends on obtaining marketing approvals for and successfully commercializing our therapeutic candidates. Before obtaining marketing approval for the commercial distribution of our therapeutic candidates, we must conduct extensive nonclinical tests and clinical trials to demonstrate sufficient safety and efficacy of our therapeutic candidates in patients. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process and our future clinical trial results may not be successful. If we experience additional delays or fail to develop or again terminate development of a therapeutic candidate in our pipeline, we may not have the financial resources to continue development of, or to modify existing or to enter into new license or collaboration for, a therapeutic candidate. Other issues that may again delay or potentially prevent marketing approval of, or our ability to commercialize, our therapeutic candidates, include:

The therapeutic candidates we pursue may not demonstrate the necessary safety or efficacy requirements for marketing approval. For instance, we independently decided to cease development of INBRX-105 as we determined, after evaluation of the totality of the data from the expansion cohorts, that the initial signal was not sufficiently validated to support the continuation of the program.

We have observed serious treatment-related adverse events in connection with the development of INBRX-106 and ozekibart (INBRX-109).

Of the 166 patients studied and evaluable in our Phase 1/2 clinical trial for INBRX-106, the treatment-related serious adverse events observed were (i) general disorders and administration site conditions, which consisted of pyrexia, or fever (3 or 1.8%), and influenza-like illness (1 or 0.6%), (ii) metabolism and nutrition disorders, which consisted of failure to thrive (1 or 0.6%), hyponatraemia, a condition when the sodium levels in blood are lower than normal (1 or 0.6%), and hypercalcemia, a condition when the sodium levels in blood are higher than normal (1 or 0.6%), (iii) gastrointestinal disorders, which consisted of diarrhea (2 or 1.2%) and vomiting (1 or 0.6%), (iv) blood and lymphatic system disorders, which consisted of anemia (1 or 0.6%) and pancytopenia, a condition in which there is lower-than-normal number of red and white blood cells and platelets in the blood (1 or 0.6%), (v) cardiac disorders, which consisted of acute myocardial infarction (1 or 0.6%) and myocarditis (1 or 0.6%), (vi) cytokine release syndrome (2 or 1.2%), (vii) infusion-related reactions (2 or 1.2%), (viii) primary adrenal insufficiency (1 or 0.6%), (ix) increased blood bilirubin (1 or 0.6%), (x) myositis, or inflamed muscles (1 or 0.6%), (xi) toxic encephalopathy, or brain dysfunction caused by toxic exposure (1 or 0.6%), and (xii) acute kidney injury (1 or 0.6%).

Of the 210 patients studied and evaluable in our Phase 1 clinical trial for ozekibart (INBRX-109) in chondrosarcoma, the treatment-related serious adverse events observed were (i) abnormal laboratory findings of increased alanine aminotransferase (6 or 2.9%), increased aspartate aminotransferase (6 or 2.9%), increased hepatic enzyme (1 or 0.5%), increased liver function test (1 or 0.5%) and decreased platelet count (1 or 0.5%), (ii) gastrointestinal disorders, which consisted of diarrhea (3 or 1.4%), enterocolitis, an inflammation of the small intestine and colon (1 or 0.5%), nausea (1 or 0.5%) and vomiting (1 or 0.5%), (iii) blood and lymphatic system disorders, which consisted of anemia (3 or 1.4%), febrile neutropenia, a condition where the body has a reduced number of a certain type of white blood cells in conjunction with a fever (2 or 1%) and thrombocytopenia, a condition where the number of platelets in the blood is abnormally low (1 or 0.5%), (iv) hepatobiliary (liver, bile duct or gallbladder) disorders which consisted of acute hepatic failure (2 or 1%), hepatic failure (1 or 0.5%), hyperbilirubinemia, also known as jaundice (1 or 0.5%), (v) general disorders and administration site conditions, which consisted of asthenia, or physical weakness or general lack of energy (1 or 0.5%) and influenza-like illness (1 or 0.5%), (vi) infections, which consisted of neutropenic sepsis, a significant inflammatory response to a presumed infection in a person with or without fever (1 or 0.5%) and sepsis, an overreactive and extreme inflammatory response to infection (1 or 0.5%), (vii) metabolism and nutrition disorders, which consisted of dehydration (1 or 0.5%), failure to thrive (1 or 0.5%) and hyponatraemia, a condition when the sodium levels in blood are lower than normal (1 or 0.5%), (viii) tachycardia (1 or 0.5%), and (ix) posterior reversible encephalophathy syndrome, a condition marked by headaches, vision problems, mental changes, seizures, and swelling in the brain (1 or 0.5%). Of 89 patients studied to date in our Phase 2 clinical trial for ozekibart (INBRX-109) in chondrosarcoma, the serious adverse events related to study drug (ozekibart (INBRX-109) or placebo) were (i) abnormal laboratory findings of increased alanine aminotransferase (1 or 1.1%) and increased aspartate aminotransferase (1 or 1.1%), (ii) hepatobiliary disorders, which consisted of hyperbilirubinemia (1 or 1.1%) and hepatic failure (1 or 1.1%), which led to our partial clinical hold, as described below, (iii) infections which consisted of infectious enterocolitis (1 or 1.1%), (iv) muscular weakness (1 or 1.1%), and (v) renal and urinary disorders, which consisted of hemorrhagic Cystitis, a condition in which the bladder becomes inflamed and starts to bleed (1 or 1.1%).

The occurrence or reoccurrence of serious adverse events in the clinical trials for INBRX-106 or ozekibart (INBRX-109) could lead to delays in development, regulatory setbacks or the discontinuation of development or commercialization efforts for any of our therapeutic candidates.

A clinical trial may be suspended, partially suspended or terminated by us, the IRBs overseeing such trials, the Data Safety Monitoring Board for such trial or by the FDA or other regulatory authorities 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 or partial clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a drug or therapeutic biologic, changes in governmental regulations, administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. Clinical holds may be placed prior to a clinical trial even beginning, in order to address potential safety and risk concerns of regulatory authorities, and partial or complete clinical holds can be imposed at any time during a trial. For example, in early 2023, the Phase 2 trial of ozekibart (INBRX-109) was placed on partial clinical hold by the FDA, and the Former Parent paused patient enrollment in the trial, following the occurrence of a fatal serious adverse event (grade 5) of hepatotoxicity (or hepatic failure) triggering the pre-defined stopping rules built into the protocol. The FDA lifted the hold in April 2023 after the Former Parent amended the trial protocol to include additional screening criteria and to make other changes to address patients who may be at risk of significant hepatotoxicity. Furthermore, while we perform certain similar functions internally, we expect to rely on contract research organizations, or CROs, and clinical trial sites to ensure proper and timely conduct of our clinical trials and while we expect to enter into and have entered into agreements governing those CROs’ committed activities, we have limited influence over their actual performance.

If we experience delays in the completion of, or termination of, any clinical trial of our therapeutic candidates, the commercial prospects of our therapeutic candidates may be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenue or receive royalties from any of these therapeutic candidates may be delayed. Any delays in completing our clinical trials may increase our costs, slow down our product development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue. If we were to cancel the development of any of our therapeutic

candidates, we may still be required to pay certain non-cancellable commitments to our CROs under the terms of our various CRO contracts. Any of these occurrences may materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations 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 marketing approval of our therapeutic candidates.

The success of our business depends in part upon our ability to identify, develop and commercialize therapeutics and therapeutic candidates (including ozekibart (INBRX-109) and INBRX-106) based on our proprietary modular protein engineering platforms, which leverage a novel and unproven therapeutic approach. Our research methodology and novel approach to oncology and rare disease using our proprietary modular protein engineering platforms may be unsuccessful in identifying additional therapeutic candidates, and any therapeutic candidates based on our technology may be shown to have harmful side effects or may have other characteristics that may necessitate additional clinical testing that would extend development timelines and be more costly, or make the therapeutic candidates unmarketable or unlikely to receive marketing approval. If any of our therapeutic candidates prove to be ineffective, unsafe or commercially unviable, our entire pipeline could have little, if any, value, and it may prove to be difficult or impossible to finance or further continue development of our pipeline. As noted above, we have observed serious adverse events in our Phase 1/2 clinical trial of INBRX-106, as well as our Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials of ozekibart (INBRX-109) for chondrosarcoma, for which we have been subject to a prior partial clinical hold.

As noted in the risk factor “We face significant competition and if our competitors develop and market products that are more effective, safer or less expensive than the therapeutic candidates we develop, our commercial opportunities will be negatively impacted,” the life science industry is highly competitive, and development of products, even therapeutic candidates with novel and unproven technology such as our therapeutic candidates, is highly competitive. If we fail to stay at the forefront of technological change in utilizing our protein engineering platforms to create and develop product candidates, we may be unable to compete effectively. Our competitors may render our protein engineering platforms obsolete or may limit the commercial value of our therapeutic candidates, by advances in existing technological approaches or the development of new or different approaches, potentially eliminating the advantages in our drug discovery process that we believe we derive from our research approach and proprietary technologies. By contrast, adverse developments with respect to other companies that attempt to use a similar approach to our approach may adversely impact the actual or perceived value of our proprietary modular protein engineering platforms and potential of our proprietary modular protein engineering platforms-based therapeutic candidates.

Moreover, advancing our therapeutic candidates as novel candidates creates other significant challenges for us, including educating medical personnel regarding a novel class of modular protein therapeutics, as well as the challenges of incorporating our therapeutic candidates, if ever approved, into treatment regimens.

If any of these challenges, events or circumstances occur, we may be forced to abandon our development efforts for a program or programs, which would harm our business, financial condition, results of operation and prospects.

Success in preclinical studies and early clinical trials does not ensure that later and pivotal clinical trials will generate the same results, or otherwise provide adequate data to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of a therapeutic candidate. Frequently, therapeutic candidates that have shown promising results in preclinical studies or early clinical trials have subsequently suffered significant setbacks in later or pivotal clinical trials. The initiation of Phase 2 trials for any of our therapeutic candidates, is and would be predicated on positive Phase 1 trial results and acceptance of our IND amendment by the FDA. Our therapeutic candidates in clinical trials, including ozekibart

(INBRX-109) and INBRX-106, may ultimately fail to show the desired safety and efficacy in clinical trials despite having progressed through preclinical studies and despite any initial observations of single agent activity, stable disease or partial responses. As noted above, we ceased development of INBRX-105 after determining that the initial signal was not sufficiently validated to support the continuation of the program even though we observed certain partial and complete responses. There can be no assurance that any of our clinical trials will ultimately be successful or support further clinical development, including development in trials, of any of our therapeutic candidates. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in clinical development even after achieving promising results in earlier studies or trials, and any of these setbacks in our clinical development could have a material adverse effect on our business and operating results.

Undesirable side effects caused by our therapeutic candidates have caused and could again cause us or regulatory authorities, to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials. These circumstances could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of marketing approval by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Results of our clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity of adverse side effects and it is possible that patients enrolled in these clinical trials could respond in unexpected ways. For instance, ozekibart (INBRX-109) and INBRX-106 are therapeutic candidates targeting oncology indications that are clinically evaluated in very sick populations. Certain trial participants, including participants evaluated in our trials for ozekibart (INBRX-109), have in the past and others may in the future experience side effects or serious adverse events that could be related to one of our therapeutic candidates. As noted in the risk factor “Our therapeutic candidates are in various stages of development and may fail or suffer delays that materially and adversely affect their commercial viability. If we, or our collaborators, are unable to advance our therapeutic candidates through clinical development, obtain marketing approval and ultimately commercialize our therapeutic candidates, or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.” we have observed serious treatment related serious adverse events in our Phase 1/2 clinical trial of INBRX-106 which consisted of general disorders and administration site conditions, metabolism and nutrition disorders, gastrointestinal disorders, blood and lymphatic system disorders, cardiac disorders, cytokine release syndrome, infusion-related reactions, primary adrenal insufficiency, increased blood bilirubin, myositis, toxic encephalopathy, and acute kidney injury, and in our Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials of ozekibart (INBRX-109) in chondrosarcoma which consisted of abnormal laboratory findings, gastrointestinal disorders, blood and lymphatic disorders, hepatobiliary disorders, general disorders and administration site conditions, infections, metabolism and nutrition disorders, tachycardia, posterior reversible encephalophathy syndrome, muscular weakness and renal and urinary disorders.

It may be difficult to establish safety and efficacy in relatively small patient populations with rare diseases. Further, we intend to develop certain of our therapeutic candidates in combination with one or more cancer therapies. This combination may have additional side effects that were not present in preclinical studies or clinical trials of our therapeutic candidates conducted as a monotherapy or in combination with other cancer therapies. The uncertainty resulting from the use of our therapeutic candidates in combination with other cancer therapies may make it difficult to accurately predict side effects in future clinical trials.

These side effects could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. Further, clinical trials by their nature utilize a sample of the potential patient population. Rare and severe side effects of our therapeutic candidates may only be uncovered with a significantly larger number of patients exposed to our therapeutic candidates.

In the event that any of our therapeutic candidates receives marketing approval and we or others identify undesirable side effects caused by our product (or potentially other therapeutics with similar mechanisms of action), any of the following adverse events could occur:

In addition, adverse side effects caused by any therapeutics that may be similar in nature to our therapeutic candidates could delay or prevent marketing approval of our therapeutic candidates, limit the commercial profile of an approved label for our therapeutic candidates, or result in significant negative consequences for our therapeutic candidates following marketing approval.

Any of the above described events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of our therapeutic candidates, if approved, and could delay, impede and/or substantially increase the costs of commercializing our therapeutic candidates thus significantly impacting our ability to successfully commercialize our therapeutic candidates and generate revenue. Any of the above described occurrences may materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We also may evaluate our therapeutic candidates in combination with one or more cancer therapies that have not yet been approved for marketing by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside of the United States. We will not be able to market and sell any therapeutic candidate we develop in combination with an unapproved cancer therapy if that unapproved cancer therapy does not ultimately obtain marketing approval. In addition, unapproved cancer therapies face the same risks described with respect to our therapeutic candidates currently in development and clinical trials, including the potential for serious adverse events, delay in their clinical trials and lack of FDA approval.

If the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside of the United States do not approve these other drugs or revoke their approval of, or if safety, efficacy, manufacturing, or supply issues arise with, the drugs we choose to evaluate in combination our therapeutic candidates, we may be unable to obtain approval of or market any such therapeutic candidate.

We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials for our therapeutic candidates if we are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials as required by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States. Should any competitors have ongoing clinical trials for therapeutic candidates treating the same indications as our therapeutic candidates, patients who would otherwise be eligible for our clinical trials may instead enroll in clinical trials of our competitors’ therapeutic candidates.

Patient enrollment is affected by other factors including:

We have provided, and will continue to provide, a number of timing estimates regarding the initiation of clinical trials and clinical development milestones, and the expected availability of data resulting from these trials for certain of our therapeutic candidates. We expect to continue to estimate the timing of these types of development milestones and our expected timing for the accomplishment of various other scientific, clinical, regulatory and other product development objectives. From time to time, we may publicly announce the expected timing of some of these events and we have had to adjust our previously announced timing for certain of our therapeutic candidates. The achievement of many of these milestones and events may be outside of our control. All of these timing estimations are based on a variety of assumptions we make, which may cause the actual timing of these events to differ from the timing we expect, including:

If we fail to achieve announced milestones in the timeframes we expect, the future marketing approval and commercialization of any of our therapeutic candidates may be delayed, and our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects may be harmed and our stock price may decline.

From time to time, we publish initial, interim, topline or preliminary data from our clinical trials. Certain of our clinical trials are also conducted as “open-label” trials. An open-label trial is one where both the study participant and investigator know whether the participant is receiving the therapeutic candidate and where we (as the sponsor) have access to trial data on an ongoing basis during the trial. These initial, interim, topline and preliminary data from our clinical trials that we may publish from time to time or that we may observe on an ongoing basis in our open-

label trials may change as more data become available and, accordingly, they are not necessarily predictive of final results. Preliminary and interim data are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as participant enrollment continues, more participant data becomes available and we issue our final clinical trial report. Initial, interim, topline and preliminary data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. As a result, initial, interim, topline and preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Material adverse changes in the final data compared to the interim data could significantly harm our business prospects.

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

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

While we expect to continue our current clinical trials and expect to initiate clinical trials in the near term for other therapeutic candidates, we do not independently conduct clinical trials. As such, while we perform certain functions internally, we currently rely on third-party CROs, clinical data management organizations and consultants to help us design, conduct, supervise and monitor clinical trials of our therapeutic candidates. As a result, we have less control over the timing, quality and other aspects of our clinical trials than we would have had we conducted them on our own. There is a limited number of third party service providers that specialize or have the expertise required to achieve our business objectives. If any of our relationships with these third-party CROs or clinical investigators terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs or investigators or to do so on commercially reasonable terms. Further, these investigators, CROs and consultants are not our employees and we have limited control over the amount of time and resources that they dedicate to our programs. These third parties may have contractual relationships with other entities, some of which may be our competitors, which may draw time and resources from our programs. The third parties with which we contract might not be diligent, careful or timely in conducting our nonclinical studies or clinical trials. If we cannot contract with acceptable third parties on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, or if these third parties do not carry out their contractual duties, satisfy the legal and regulatory requirements for the conduct of nonclinical studies or clinical trials or meet expected deadlines for any reason, our clinical development programs could be delayed and otherwise adversely affected.

In all events, we will be responsible for ensuring that each of our nonclinical studies and clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the relevant study or trial. The FDA requires nonclinical studies to be conducted in accordance with good laboratory practices and clinical trials to be conducted in accordance with good clinical practices, or GCPs, including practices and requirements for designing, conducting, recording and reporting the results of nonclinical studies and clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are

credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of clinical trial participants are protected. Our reliance on third parties we do not control will not relieve us of these responsibilities and requirements. Any adverse development or delay in our clinical trials could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In accordance with the applicable accounting and regulatory requirements, we track all research and development expenses in the aggregate and do not measure or track such expenses on a program-by-program basis. As a result, we evaluate the effectiveness of any particular research and development expense using qualitative metrics such as patient data and discussions with our employees overseeing the particular program. Our approach to research and development expenses may limit our ability to accurately assess the cost-effectiveness and progress of individual programs, which could impact our strategic decision-making process. For instance, if our qualitative observations are inaccurate or if the CRO fails to adequately oversee the research and development activities of any program, we may continue to allocate resources to a program that is not cost-effective or underperforming, or conversely, we may underfund a program that could potentially yield significant returns. This could result in inefficient use of our resources and potentially impact our financial condition and results of operations. Moreover, our approach to tracking research and development expenses could potentially impact our ability to attract investors who scrutinize the allocation of research and development expenses as a measure of a company’s management efficiency and strategic focus. If any such risk were to materialize, it could potentially impact our financial condition, results of operations, and ability to attract investments.

We may enter into collaborations with third parties in the future. Any collaborations that we are party to may pose several risks, including the following:

In addition, we may have disagreements with these collaborators, including disagreements over proprietary rights, collaborator performance, contract interpretation or the preferred course of development of any therapeutic candidates. Any disagreement we may have with our collaborators, may cause delays or termination of the research, development or commercialization of our therapeutic candidates pursuant to the applicable agreement, may lead to additional responsibilities for us with respect to our therapeutic candidates or may result in litigation or arbitration, any of which would be time-consuming and expensive and which would likely divert the attention of our management from our core research and development activities. These types of disputes could materially harm our financial condition and our business.

While we have found that our therapeutic candidates can be readily manufactured at high yields with established processes used to produce therapeutic proteins, the manufacture of biotechnology products is generally complex and requires significant expertise and capital investment. We and our contract manufacturers must comply with current Good Manufacturing Practices, or cGMP, regulations and guidelines for clinical trial product manufacture and for commercial product manufacture. Manufacturers of biotechnology products often encounter difficulties in production, particularly in scaling up, addressing product quality, product comparability, validating production processes and mitigating potential sources of contamination. These problems include difficulties with raw material procurement, production costs and yields, quality control, product quality, including stability of the product, quality assurance testing, operator error, shortages of qualified personnel, as well as compliance with strictly enforced federal, state and foreign regulations. Furthermore, if microbial, viral or other contaminations are discovered in our therapeutics or in the manufacturing facilities in which our therapeutics are made, such manufacturing facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination.

We cannot assure you that manufacturing problems, including supply chain disruptions of any of our therapeutic candidates or products will not occur in the future. Any delay or interruption in the supply of preclinical or clinical trial supplies or supply chain disruptions could delay the completion of these trials, increase the costs associated with maintaining these trial programs and, depending upon the period of delay, require us to commence new trials at additional expense or terminate trials completely.

If we were to experience an unexpected loss of supply of, or if any supplier were unable to meet our demand for any of our therapeutic candidates or future approved products we seek to commercialize, if any, we could experience delays in our research or planned clinical studies or be forced to stop our development or commercialization efforts. We could be unable to find alternative suppliers of acceptable quality, in the appropriate volumes and at an acceptable cost. Moreover, our suppliers are often subject to strict manufacturing requirements and rigorous testing requirements, which could limit or delay production. The long transition periods needed to switch manufacturers and suppliers, if necessary, would significantly delay our clinical studies and the commercialization of our therapeutics, if approved, which would materially adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operation.

We do not currently have, nor do we plan to acquire, the infrastructure or capability internally to develop and manufacture our therapeutic candidates for use in the conduct of our trials or for commercial supply, if our therapeutics are approved. Instead, we rely on, and expect to continue to rely on third-party providers to manufacture the supplies for our preclinical studies and clinical trials. We currently rely on a limited number of third-party contract manufacturers for our required raw materials, antibodies, and other biologics for our preclinical research and clinical trials, as well as for the manufacture of supplies for our therapeutic candidates. To the extent any of our manufacturing partners are unable to fulfill these obligations in a timely manner, our clinical trials may be delayed, and our business may be adversely affected. In general, reliance on third party providers may expose us to more risk than if we were to manufacture our therapeutic candidates ourselves. We do not control the operational processes of the contract manufacturing organizations with whom we contract and are dependent on these third parties for the production of our therapeutic candidates in accordance with relevant regulations (such as cGMP), which include, among other things, quality control and the maintenance of records and documentation.

Our manufacturing partners may be unable to successfully increase the manufacturing capacity for our therapeutic candidates in a timely or cost-effective manner, or at all, as needed for our development efforts or, if our therapeutic candidates are approved, our commercialization efforts. Quality issues may also arise during scale-up activities. If we, or any manufacturing partners, are unable to successfully scale up the manufacture of our therapeutic candidates in sufficient quality and quantity, the development, testing, and clinical trials of our therapeutic candidates may be delayed or infeasible, and marketing approval or future commercial launch of any resulting therapeutic may be delayed or not obtained, which could significantly harm our business.

Although a substantial amount of our efforts will focus on the continued preclinical and clinical testing and potential approval of our therapeutic candidates in our current pipeline, we continue to innovate and expect to expand our portfolio. Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, research programs to identify therapeutic candidates may require substantial additional technical, financial and human resources, whether or not any new potential therapeutic candidates are ultimately identified. Our success may depend in part upon our ability to identify, select and develop promising therapeutic candidates and therapeutics. We may expend resources and ultimately fail to discover and generate additional therapeutic candidates suitable for further development. All therapeutic candidates are prone to risks of failure typical of biotechnology product development, including the possibility that a therapeutic candidate may not be suitable for clinical development as a result of its harmful side effects, limited efficacy or other characteristics indicating that it is unlikely to receive approval by the FDA, the EMA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities or to achieve market acceptance. If we do not successfully develop and commercialize new therapeutic candidates we have identified and explored, our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

We are exposed to significant product liability risks inherent in the development, testing, manufacturing and marketing of biotechnology treatments of any therapeutic candidates for which we may conduct clinical trials. Product liability claims could delay or prevent completion of our development programs. If we succeed in marketing any approved products, these claims could result in an FDA investigation of the safety and effectiveness of our future commercial products, our manufacturing processes and facilities (or the manufacturing processes and facilities of our third-party manufacturers) or our marketing programs, a recall of our products or more serious enforcement action, limitations on the approved indications for which the product may be used or suspension or

withdrawal of approvals. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may also result in decreased demand for our products, injury to our reputation, costs to defend the related litigation, a diversion of management’s time and our resources, substantial monetary awards to clinical trial participants or patients and a decline in our stock price. Any insurance we have or may obtain may not provide sufficient coverage against potential liabilities. Furthermore, clinical trial and product liability insurance is becoming increasingly expensive. As a result, we may be unable to obtain sufficient insurance at a reasonable cost to protect us against losses caused by potential product liability claims that could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We currently have no sales, marketing or distribution capabilities. We will need to expand our own internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities to commercialize our approved therapeutic candidates, if any, in the United States and other worldwide territories, or will need to enter into collaborations with third parties to perform these services. Any internal effort would be expensive and time-consuming, and we would need to commit significant financial and managerial resources to develop an internal marketing and sales force with technical expertise and the related supporting distribution, administration and compliance capabilities. If we were to rely on additional third parties with these capabilities to market our future therapeutics or were to decide to co-promote products with any of our future collaborators, we would need to establish and maintain or revise existing marketing and distribution arrangements with these partners, and there can be no assurance that we will be able to enter into such arrangements on acceptable terms or at all. Any revenue we receive in connection with third-party license, marketing or distribution arrangements, will depend upon the efforts of these third parties, and there can be no assurance these third parties will establish adequate sales and distribution capabilities or be successful in gaining market acceptance of any approved product. If we are not successful in commercializing any product approved in the future, either on our own or through third parties, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially and adversely affected.

Our therapeutic candidates are still in clinical development and our emerging pipeline is still in preclinical development; we may never have an approved product that is commercially successful. Due to the inherent risk in the development of biopharmaceutical products, it is probable that not all or none of the therapeutic candidates in our pipeline, including any that are or may be licensed to third parties, will successfully complete development and be commercialized. Furthermore, even when available on the market, our products may not achieve an adequate level of acceptance by physicians, patients and the medical community, and we may not become profitable. In addition, efforts to educate the medical community and third-party payors on the benefits of our products may require significant resources and may never be successful, which would prevent us from generating significant revenue or becoming profitable. Market acceptance of any approved products by physicians, patients and healthcare payors will depend on a number of factors, many of which are beyond our control, including, but not limited to:

Risks Related to Our Organization and Operations

The life sciences industry is highly competitive. We are currently developing therapeutic candidates that will compete, if approved, with other products and therapies that currently exist or are being developed. Our primary competitors fall into the following groups:

Our competitors also include other large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies who may be developing therapeutic candidates with mechanisms similar to or targeting the same indications as our therapeutic candidates.

Products we may develop in the future are also likely to face competition from other products and therapies, some of which we may not currently be aware. We have competitors both in the United States and internationally, including major multinational pharmaceutical companies, established biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies, universities and other research institutions. Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial, manufacturing, marketing, product development, technical and human resources than we do. Large pharmaceutical companies, in particular, have extensive experience in clinical testing, obtaining marketing approvals, recruiting patients and manufacturing pharmaceutical products. These companies also have significantly greater research and marketing capabilities than we do and may also have products that have been approved or are in late stages of development, and collaborative arrangements in our target markets with leading companies and research institutions. Established pharmaceutical companies may also invest heavily to accelerate discovery and development of novel compounds or to in-license novel compounds that could make the therapeutic candidates that we develop obsolete. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. As a result of all of these factors, our competitors may succeed in obtaining patent protection and/or marketing approval or discovering, developing and commercializing products in our field before we do.

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe effects, are more convenient, have a broader label, are marketed more effectively, are reimbursed or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA, EMA or other marketing approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. Even if the therapeutic candidates we develop achieve marketing approval, they may be priced at a significant premium over competitive products if any have been approved by then, resulting in reduced competitiveness.

Smaller and other early stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors. These third parties compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. In addition, the biopharmaceutical industry is characterized by rapid technological change. If we fail to stay at the forefront of technological change, we may be unable to compete effectively. Technological advances or

products developed by our competitors may render our therapeutic candidates obsolete, less competitive or not economical.

Our business could be adversely affected by widespread outbreak of illness or other communicable diseases, health epidemics, or any other public health crisis. For example, on January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization, or the WHO, announced a global health emergency because of a novel strain of coronavirus named SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019, or COVID-19, originating in Wuhan, China. In March 2020, the WHO classified the COVID-19 outbreak as a pandemic, based on the rapid increase in exposure globally. The COVID-19 pandemic led to global supply chain challenges, local and regional lockdowns, and disruptions in clinical trials and other in-person operations. Although in May 2023, the WHO announced that the disease was no longer considered pandemic, the virus continues to mutate and remains endemic throughout the world, including the United States. Future outbreaks of COVID-19 and emerging pathogens that may not yet be identified could cause disruptions to our operations or those of third parties with whom we engage.

Our success largely depends on the continued service of key management, advisors and other specialized personnel, including Mark P. Lappe, our Chief Executive Officer, Brendan P. Eckelman, Ph.D., our Chief Scientific Officer, and Kelly D. Deck, our Chief Financial Officer, who are all employed at will and for whom we do not have “key man” insurance coverage. The loss of one or more members of our management team or other key employees or advisors could delay our research and development programs and have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. We are dependent on the continued service of our technical personnel because of the highly technical nature of our therapeutic candidates and technologies and the specialized nature of the marketing approval process. Our future success will depend in large part on our continued ability to attract and retain other highly qualified scientific, technical and management personnel, as well as personnel with expertise in clinical testing, manufacturing, governmental regulation and commercialization. We face competition for personnel from other companies, universities, public and private research institutions, government entities and other organizations (many of whom have substantially greater financial resources than us), and we might not be able to attract or retain these key employees on conditions that are economically acceptable. Our inability to attract and retain these key employees could prevent us from achieving our objectives and implementing our business strategy, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and prospects.

We may incur significant indebtedness in the future. Any debt arrangements or instruments we may enter into in the future may require us to comply with various covenants that may limit our ability to, among other things:

These covenants could make it difficult to operate our business. A failure by us to comply with any covenants contained in debt arrangements or instruments could result in an event of default, which could adversely affect our ability to respond to changes in our business and manage our operations. Upon the occurrence of an event of default, including the occurrence of a material adverse change, lenders could elect to declare all amounts outstanding to be due and payable and exercise other remedies. If any indebtedness were to be accelerated, our future financial condition could be materially adversely affected.

Additionally, our obligations under any future debt arrangements or instruments could be secured by substantially all of our assets, including our intellectual property. If we are unable to repay, refinance or restructure any such future indebtedness when payment is due, the lenders could proceed against this collateral granted to them to secure such indebtedness or force us into bankruptcy or liquidation. Further, if our business is subject to liquidation, the right to repayment of any holders of indebtedness would be senior to the rights of the holders of our Common Stock to receive any proceeds from the liquidation.

We are exposed to the risk of fraud or other misconduct by our employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, contract research organizations, consultants or vendors. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional failures to comply with state and federal securities laws, FDA regulations, provide accurate information to the FDA, comply with manufacturing standards we may establish for our therapeutic candidates, comply with federal and state data privacy, security, fraud and abuse, and other healthcare laws and regulations, 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, 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. Activities subject to these laws could also involve the improper use or misrepresentation 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 misconduct by employees and third parties, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations. Additionally, we are subject to the risk that a person or government could allege such fraud or other misconduct, even if none occurred. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, monetary damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, loss of eligibility to obtain marketing approvals from the FDA, exclusion from participation in government contracting, healthcare reimbursement or other government programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting requirements if subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with any of these laws, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.

Certain of our employees, consultants or advisors are currently, or were previously, employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants and advisors do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that these individuals or we have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such individual’s current or former employer. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. As noted in “Business — Legal Proceedings,” we and Dr. Eckelman are party to litigation asserting claims against us for misappropriation of trade secrets related to Dr. Eckelman’s service as an expert witness. If we fail in defending against these and any other such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Even if we are

successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

We maintain insurance that we believe is adequate for businesses of our size and type. However, there are types of losses that we believe are not economically reasonable to insure or that cannot be insured against. For instance, because directors and officers, or D&O, liability insurance has become cost prohibitive with high retentions providing minimal coverage, we have not renewed our D&O policy.

It is possible that we may be subject to securities litigation in the future, including potential class action or stockholder derivative actions. Our indemnification agreements with our directors and certain officers, as well as Delaware General Corporation Law, or DGCL, may require us, among other things, to indemnify them against certain liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors or officers. Without D&O insurance, the amounts we would pay to defend any such litigation or indemnify our officers and directors should they be subject to legal action based on their service to us could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and liquidity.

We may experience significant growth in the number of our employees and the scope of our operations, particularly in the areas of drug development and regulatory affairs, as well as sales and marketing to the extent any of our therapeutic candidates approach receipt of marketing authorization. To manage our future growth, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems, expand our facilities and continue to recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Due to our limited financial resources, we may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations or recruit and train additional qualified personnel. The expansion of our operations may lead to significant costs and may divert our management and business development resources. Any inability to manage growth could delay the execution of our business plans or disrupt our operations.

Should we in the future acquire any complementary business, therapeutic candidates or technologies, our ability to integrate and manage acquired businesses, therapeutic candidates or technologies effectively will depend upon a number of factors including the size of the acquired business, the complexity of any therapeutic candidate or technology and the resulting difficulty of integrating the acquired business’s operations, if any. Our relationship with current employees or employees of any acquired business may become impaired. We may also be subject to unexpected claims and liabilities arising from such acquisitions. These claims and liabilities could be costly to defend, could be material to our financial condition and might exceed either the limitations of any applicable indemnification provisions or the financial resources of the indemnifying parties. There can also be no assurance that we will be able to assess ongoing profitability and identify all actual or potential liabilities of a business, therapeutic candidate or technology prior to its acquisition. If we acquire businesses, therapeutic candidates or technologies that result in assuming unforeseen liabilities in respect of which it has not obtained contractual protections or for which protection is not available, this could materially adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Any of the internal computer systems belonging to us or our third-party service providers are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war, and telecommunication and electrical failure. Any system failure, accident or security breach that causes interruptions in our own or in third-party service vendors’ operations could result in a material disruption of our development programs. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed or future clinical trials could result in delays in our or our partners’ marketing approval efforts and significantly increase our costs in order to recover or reproduce the lost data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach results in a loss or damage to our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure

of confidential or proprietary information, we may incur liability, our development programs, reputation and competitive position may be adversely affected and the further development of our therapeutic candidates may be delayed. Furthermore, we may incur additional costs to remedy the damage caused by these disruptions or security breaches.

We maintain sensitive company data on our computer networks and third-party cloud services, including our intellectual property and proprietary business information. We face a number of threats to our networks from unauthorized access, accidental acts or omissions that expose vulnerabilities, security breaches and other system disruptions. Our third-party partners, including CROs and providers of data hosting or cloud services, as well as suppliers, distributors, alliances, and other third-party service providers, face similar risks, which could affect us directly or indirectly.

We are increasingly dependent upon our technology systems to operate our business and our ability to effectively manage our business depends on the security, reliability and adequacy of our technology systems and data, which includes use of cloud technologies. A breakdown, invasion, corruption, destruction or breach of our technology systems, including the cloud technologies that we utilize, and/or unauthorized access to our data and information could subject us to liability or negatively impact the operation of our business. Our technology systems, including the cloud technologies that we utilize, continue to increase in multitude and complexity, making them potentially vulnerable to breakdown, malicious intrusion and random attack. Likewise, data privacy or security breaches by individuals authorized to access our technology systems, including the cloud technologies that we utilize, may pose a risk that sensitive data, including intellectual property, trade secrets or personal information belonging to us, our patients, customers or other business partners, may be exposed to unauthorized persons or to the public.

Cyber-attacks are increasing in their frequency, sophistication and intensity, and are becoming increasingly difficult to detect. They are often carried out by motivated, well-resourced, skilled and persistent actors, including nation states, organized crime groups, “hacktivists” and employees or contractors acting with malicious intent. Cyber-attacks could include the deployment of harmful malware and key loggers, ransomware, a denial-of-service attack, a malicious website, the use of social engineering and other means to affect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of our technology systems and data. Our key business partners face similar risks and any security breach of their systems could adversely affect our security posture. In addition, our increased use of cloud technologies could heighten these and other operational risks, and any failure by cloud technology service providers to adequately safeguard their systems and prevent cyber-attacks could disrupt our operations and result in misappropriation, corruption, or loss of confidential or propriety information.

The United States federal and all state and foreign governments have adopted or proposed requirements regarding the collection, distribution, use, security, and storage of personally identifiable information and other data relating to individuals, and federal and state consumer protection laws are being applied to enforce regulations related to the collection, use, and dissemination of data. Some of these federal, state and foreign government requirements include obligations of companies to notify individuals and others of security breaches involving certain personally identifiable information, which could result from breaches experienced by us or by our vendors, contractors, or organizations with which we have formed strategic relationships. Even though we may have contractual protections with such vendors, contractors, or other organizations, notifications and follow-up actions related to a security breach could impact our reputation, prompt regulatory scrutiny and enforcement, cause us to incur significant costs, including legal expenses, or cause us to incur remediation costs that could, under such circumstances, materially harm our business.

Any such security breach may materially compromise information stored on our networks and may result in significant data losses or theft of our intellectual property or proprietary business information, it may also subject us to significant fines, penalties or liabilities for any noncompliance with certain privacy and security laws. We maintain cyber liability insurance; however, this insurance may not be sufficient to cover the financial, legal, business, or reputational losses that may result from an interruption of breach of our systems.

While we continue to build and improve our systems and infrastructure, including our business continuity plans, there can be no assurance that our efforts will prevent breakdowns or breaches in our systems that could adversely affect our business and operations and/or result in the loss of critical or sensitive information, which could result in financial, legal, business, operational or reputational harm to us, loss of competitive advantage or loss of consumer confidence. In addition, our liability insurance may not be sufficient in type or amount to cover us against claims related to security breaches, cyber-attacks and other related breaches. Further, a data breach could result in regulatory investigations and negative publicity which could damage our reputation and have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Our current operations are located in our facilities in La Jolla, California. Any unplanned event, such as flood, fire, explosion, earthquake, extreme weather condition, medical epidemics or pandemics, power shortage, telecommunication failure or other natural or man-made accidents or incidents, that results in us being unable to fully utilize our facilities, or the manufacturing facilities of our third-party contract manufacturers, may have a material and adverse effect on our ability to operate our business, particularly on a daily basis, and have significant negative consequences on our financial and operating conditions. Loss of access to these facilities may result in increased costs, delays in the development of our therapeutic candidates or interruption of our business operations. Earthquakes, medical epidemics or pandemics or other natural disasters could further disrupt our operations, and have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Certain of these natural disasters, including fires and severe weather events may be exacerbated by the effects of climate change. If a natural disaster, pandemic, power outage or other event occurred that prevented us from using all or a significant portion of our headquarters, that damaged critical infrastructure, such as our research facilities or if similar events occurred elsewhere effecting the manufacturing facilities of our third-party contract manufacturers, or that otherwise disrupted operations, it may be difficult or, in certain cases, impossible, for us to continue our business for a substantial period of time. We may incur substantial expenses as a result of the limited nature of our disaster recovery and business continuity plans, which, could have a material and adverse effect on our business. As part of our risk management policy, we maintain insurance coverage at levels that we believe are appropriate for our business. However, in the event of an accident or incident at these facilities, we cannot assure you that the amounts of insurance will be sufficient to satisfy any damages and losses. If our facilities, or the manufacturing facilities of our third-party contract manufacturers, are unable to operate because of an accident or incident or for any other reason, even for a short period of time, any or all of our research and development programs may be harmed. Any business interruption may have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patents and other forms of intellectual property rights, including in-licenses of intellectual property rights of others, patents and patent applications protecting, or seeking to protect, our therapeutic candidates and methods for treating patients using our therapeutic candidates, as well as our ability to preserve our trade secrets, to prevent third parties from infringing upon our proprietary rights and to operate without infringing upon the proprietary rights of others. Our patent estate includes various issued United States patents, United States pending non-provisional patent applications, United States pending provisional applications, pending Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, applications, issued foreign patents, and foreign patent applications currently pending in various foreign jurisdictions.

While we will endeavor to protect our therapeutic candidates with intellectual property rights such as patents, as appropriate, the process of obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing patents is time-consuming, expensive and sometimes unpredictable, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications, or maintain, enforce and license any patents that may issue from such patent applications, at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. We may not have the right to control the preparation, filing

and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the rights to any patents we may license to or from third parties. Therefore, such patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business.

Our existing issued and granted patents and any future patents we obtain may not be sufficiently broad to prevent others from using our technology or from developing competing products and technology. There is no guarantee that any of our pending patent applications will result in issued or granted patents, that any of our issued or granted patents will not later be found to be invalid or unenforceable or that any issued or granted patents will include claims that are sufficiently broad to provide meaningful protection from any competitors. Our competitors may be able to circumvent our patents by developing similar or alternative therapeutic candidates in a non-infringing manner. We will be able to protect our proprietary rights from unauthorized use by third parties only to the extent that our current and future proprietary technology and therapeutic candidates are covered by valid and enforceable patents or are effectively maintained as trade secrets. If third parties disclose or misappropriate our proprietary rights, it may materially and adversely affect our business.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other provisions during the patent process. There are situations in which non-compliance 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. The standards applied by the USPTO and foreign patent offices in granting patents are not always applied uniformly or predictably. For example, there is no uniform worldwide policy regarding patentable subject matter or the scope of claims allowable in biotechnology patents. As such, we do not know the degree of future protection that we will have on our proprietary therapeutics and technology.

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal, technological and factual questions and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. Once granted, patents may remain open to opposition, interference, re-examination, post-grant review, inter partes review, nullification or derivation action in court or before patent offices or similar proceedings for a given period after allowance or grant, during which time third parties can raise objections against such initial grant. In the course of such proceedings, which may continue for a protracted period of time, the patent owner may be compelled to limit the scope of the allowed or granted claims thus attacked, or may lose the allowed or granted claims altogether, e.g., due to a determination that the claims are invalid or unenforceable. In addition, there can be no assurance that:

As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain.

Obtaining valid and enforceable issued or granted patents covering our therapeutic candidates in the United States and worldwide can be extremely costly. In jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection, competitors or third parties may use our technology to develop their own products and further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but where it is more difficult to enforce a patent as compared to the United States. Third-party or competitor products may compete with our future products in jurisdictions where we do not have issued or granted patents or where our issued or granted patent claims or other intellectual property

rights are not sufficient to prevent competitor activities in these jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, make it difficult to enforce patents and such countries may not recognize other types of intellectual property protection, particularly that relating to biotechnology. This could make it difficult for us to prevent the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally in certain jurisdictions. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing, could provoke third parties to assert claims against us, and, whether or not successful, could result in substantial cost and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business.

We generally file a provisional patent application first (a priority filing) at the USPTO. An international application under the PCT is usually filed within 12 months after the priority filing. Based on the PCT filing, national and regional patent applications may be filed in the United States, Europe, Japan, Australia and Canada and, depending on the individual case, also in one, several or all of Brazil, China, India, Israel, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia or Eurasian Patent Organization, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea and other jurisdictions. We have so far not filed for patent protection in all national and regional jurisdictions where such protection may be available. In addition, we may decide to abandon national and regional patent applications before grant. Finally, the grant proceeding of each national or regional patent is an independent proceeding which may lead to situations in which applications might in some jurisdictions be refused by the relevant registration authorities, while granted by others. It is also quite common that, depending on the country, various scopes of patent protection may be granted on the same therapeutic candidate or technology.

When a patent is granted by a regional patent office (e.g., Europe or Eurasia), the patent must be validated in individual countries in order to be in effect in those countries. We may decide not to validate regional patents in every available country or at all in any country in the region. In addition, we may decide to abandon national and regional patent applications before or after grant.

The laws of some jurisdictions do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws in the United States, and many companies have encountered significant difficulties in protecting and defending such rights in such jurisdictions. If we or any licensors encounter difficulties in protecting, or are otherwise precluded from effectively protecting, the intellectual property rights important for our business in such jurisdictions, the value of these rights may be diminished and we may face additional competition from others in those jurisdictions. Many countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of such patent. If we or any licensors are forced to grant a license to third parties with respect to any patents relevant to our business, our competitive position in the relevant jurisdiction may be impaired and our business and results of operations may be adversely affected.

Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other jurisdictions in which we file patent applications could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. For example, under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the America Invents Act, enacted in September 2011, the United States transitioned to a first inventor to file system in which, assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application is entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether a third party was the first to invent the claimed invention. In contrast, prior to March 2013, in the United States, the first to invent the claimed invention was entitled to the patent, assuming that other requirements for patentability were met. Furthermore, United States patent law under the America Invents Act allows for post issuance challenges to United States patents, including ex parte reexaminations, inter parte reviews and post grant oppositions. If our United States patents are challenged using such procedures, we may not prevail, possibly resulting in altered or diminished claim scope or loss of patent rights altogether. Similarly, some countries, notably members of the European Union, also have post grant opposition proceedings that can result in changes in scope and/or cancellation of patent claims.

The United States Supreme Court has also 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 the United States Congress, the federal courts and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that could weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future.

As another example, the complexity and uncertainty of European patent laws have increased in recent years. In Europe, a new unitary patent system was launched on June 1, 2023, which significantly impacted European patents, including those granted before the introduction of such a system. Under the unitary patent system, European applications now have the option, upon grant of a patent, of becoming a Unitary Patent, which are subject to the jurisdiction of the Unitary Patent Court, or UPC. As the UPC is a new court system, there is no precedent for the court, increasing the uncertainty of any litigation. Patents granted before the implementation of the UPC have the option of opting out of the jurisdiction of the UPC and remaining as national patents in the UPC countries. Patents that remain under the jurisdiction of the UPC will be potentially vulnerable to a single UPC-based revocation challenge that, if successful, could invalidate the patent in all countries who are signatories to the UPC. We cannot predict with certainty the long-term effects of any potential changes.

The USPTO, the European Patent Office and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. For example, periodic maintenance and annuity fees on any issued patent are due to be paid to the USPTO, the European Patent Office and foreign patent agencies in several stages over the lifetime of the patent. Some jurisdictions also require payment of annuity fees during pendency of a patent application. While an inadvertent lapse can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which non-compliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. If we or our licensors fail to maintain the patents and patent applications covering our therapeutic candidates, our competitors might better be able to enter the market, which would have an adverse effect on our business.

Third parties may have filed, and may in the future file, patent applications covering technology similar to ours. It is also possible that we have failed to identify relevant third-party patents or applications. For example, United States applications filed before November 29, 2000 and certain United States applications filed after that date that will not be filed outside the United States remain confidential until patents issue. Patent applications in the United States and elsewhere are published approximately 18 months after the earliest filing for which priority is claimed, with this earliest filing date being commonly referred to as the priority date. Therefore, patent applications covering our therapeutic candidates could have been filed by others without our knowledge. Additionally, pending patent applications that have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover any future approved products or our therapeutic candidates. Any such patent application may have priority over our patent applications, which could further require us to obtain rights to issued patents covering such technologies, if possible, or block us from practicing certain aspects of our technology if we are unable to successfully pursue litigation to nullify or invalidate the third-party intellectual property right concerned.

If another party has filed a United States patent application on inventions similar to ours that claims priority to an application filed prior to March 16, 2013, we may have to participate in an interference proceeding declared by the USPTO to determine priority of invention in the United States. Similarly, if another party has filed a United States patent application on inventions similar to ours that claims priority to an application filed after March 16, 2013, we

may have to participate in a derivation proceeding to determine whether that party derived the claimed invention from an inventor listed on our application and then filed the third-party application without authorization. The costs of these proceedings could be substantial, and it is possible that such efforts would be unsuccessful if, unbeknownst to us, the other party had independently arrived at the same or similar invention prior to our own invention, resulting in a loss of our United States patent position with respect to such inventions. In addition, 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. Further, changes enacted on March 15, 2013 to the United States patent laws under the America Invents Act resulted in the United States changing from a “first to invent” country to a “first to file” country. As a result, we may lose the ability to obtain a patent if a third party files with the USPTO first and could become involved in proceedings before the USPTO to resolve disputes related to inventorship. We may also become involved in similar proceedings in other jurisdictions.

Our commercial success depends in part on our avoiding infringement of the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. We or our licensors, licensees or any future strategic partners may be subject to third-party claims for infringement or misappropriation of patent or other proprietary rights. There is a substantial amount of litigation, both within and outside the United States, involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries including patent infringement lawsuits, interferences, derivations, oppositions and inter partes review proceedings before the USPTO, and corresponding foreign patent offices. Numerous United States and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are pursuing development candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that we may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent rights of third parties. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications which may later result in issued patents that our current or future therapeutic candidates may infringe. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents. If we, our licensees or our licensors, or any future strategic partners are found to infringe a third-party patent or other intellectual property rights, we could be required to pay damages, potentially including treble damages, if we are found to have willfully infringed. In addition, we, our licensees or our licensors, or any future strategic partners may choose to seek, or be required to seek, a license from a third party, which may not be available on acceptable terms, if at all. Even if a license can be obtained on acceptable terms, the rights may be non-exclusive, which could give any competitors access to the same technology or intellectual property rights licensed to us. If we fail to obtain a required license, the holders of any such patents may be able to block us or our licensees from marketing therapeutic candidates based on our technology until such patents expire, which could limit our ability to generate revenue or achieve profitability and possibly prevent us from generating revenue sufficient to sustain our operations.

In addition, we may find it necessary to pursue claims or initiate lawsuits to protect or enforce our patent or other intellectual property rights. The cost to us in defending or initiating any litigation or other proceeding relating to patent or other proprietary rights, even if resolved in our favor, could be substantial, and litigation would divert our management’s attention. Competitors may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could delay our research and development efforts and limit our ability to continue our operations.

If we were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one of our products or our technology, the defendant could counterclaim that our patent is invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, for example, lack of

novelty, obviousness or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability during patent litigation is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing or, in some cases, not at all. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on one or more of our products or certain aspects of our technology. This loss of patent protection could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Patents and other intellectual property rights also will not protect our technology if competitors design around our protected technology without legally infringing our patents or other intellectual property rights.

We are a party to license agreements under which we are granted rights to third-party intellectual property, and we expect that we may need to enter into additional license agreements in the future. License agreements may impose various development obligations, payment of royalties and fees based on achieving certain milestones, as well as other obligations. If we fail to comply with our obligations under these agreements, the licensor may have the right to terminate the license. The termination of any license agreements or failure to adequately protect such license agreements could prevent us from commercializing therapeutic candidates covered by the licensed intellectual property or otherwise adversely affect our business. Our license agreements may involve sublicenses from third parties which are not the original licensor of the intellectual property at issue. Under these agreements, we would rely on our licensor to comply with its obligations under the primary license agreements, where we may have no relationship with the original licensor of such rights. If the licensors fail to comply with their obligations under these upstream license agreements, the original third-party licensor may have the right to terminate the original license, which may terminate the sublicense. If this were to occur, we would no longer have rights to the applicable intellectual property and, in the case of a sublicense, if we were not able to secure our own direct license with the owner of the relevant rights, which we may not be able to do at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, it may adversely affect our ability to continue to develop and commercialize any of our therapeutic candidates incorporating the relevant intellectual property.

Disputes may arise regarding intellectual property subject to a licensing agreement, including:

Certain provisions in our intellectual property agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. For example, we may disagree with our licensors or licensees regarding whether, when and to what extent various obligations under these agreements apply to certain of our/their therapeutic candidates and products, including various payment, development, commercialization, funding, diligence, sublicensing, insurance, patent prosecution and enforcement and/or other obligations. 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. In either case, such disagreement could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In addition, while it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the conception or development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who in fact conceives or develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. Our assignment agreements may not be self-executing or may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property.

Litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims, with or without merit, are unpredictable, generally expensive, time consuming and are likely to divert significant resources from our core business, including distracting our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our Common Stock. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities.

We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to adequately conduct such litigation or proceedings. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. Accordingly, despite our efforts, we may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing upon or misappropriating or from successfully challenging our intellectual property rights. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a material and adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace.

In addition to seeking patent protection for certain aspects of our therapeutic candidates, we also consider trade secrets, including confidential and unpatented know-how important to our business. We may rely on trade secrets or confidential know-how to protect our technology, especially where patent protection is believed to be of limited value. Trade secrets and confidential know-how are difficult to maintain as confidential. We seek to protect trade secrets and confidential and unpatented know-how, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to such knowledge, such as our employees, partners, CROs, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties. In addition, while it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the conception or development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who in fact conceives or develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. Our assignment agreements may not be self-executing or may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property.

Moreover, even if relevant agreements are entered into, despite these efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and unintentionally or willfully disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we

may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Confidentiality agreements may not provide an adequate remedy in the event of unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts in the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent them from using that technology or information to compete with us. Moreover, a competitor who independently develops substantially equivalent proprietary information may even apply for patent protection in respect of the same. If successful in obtaining such patent protection, our competitors could limit our use of our trade secrets or confidential know-how. Under certain circumstances, we may also decide to publish some know-how to attempt to prevent others from obtaining patent rights covering such know-how. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position would be harmed. Additionally, if the steps taken to maintain our trade secrets are deemed inadequate, we may have insufficient recourse against third parties for misappropriating the trade secret.

Many of our employees were previously employed at universities or biotechnology companies, including potential competitors. We are and may again be subject to claims that these employees or we have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of their former employers or clients. On March 1, 2022, I-Mab Biopharma, or I-Mab, filed a lawsuit against us and Brendan Eckelman, the Company’s co-founder and Chief Scientific Officer, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, C.A. No. 22-00276-CJB, asserting claims for misappropriation of trade secrets related to Dr. Eckelman’s service as an expert witness for Tracon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Tracon, in Tracon’s arbitration against I-Mab. The parties are currently engaged in expert discovery and summary judgment motions are expected to be filed in or around June 2024, with trial currently scheduled to commence in October 2024. I-Mab is seeking royalty damages and alternative damages in the form of unjust enrichment. Litigation has been and may again be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. A loss of key research personnel or their work product could hamper our ability to commercialize, or prevent us from commercializing, our therapeutic candidates, which could severely harm our business. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

Our trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. Our trademarks may not be approved by one or more governmental trademark offices or may not be approved for use on our products by regulatory agencies, such as the FDA. 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. 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.

Patents have a limited duration. In the United States, if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from its earliest United States non provisional filing date. Various extensions may be available, but the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents covering our therapeutic candidates, their manufacture, or use are obtained, once the patent life has expired, we may be open to competition from competitive medications, including biosimilar medications.

Depending upon the timing, duration and conditions of FDA marketing approval of our therapeutic candidates, one or more of our United States patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price

Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Act, and similar legislation in the European Union. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits 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. The patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, and only one patent applicable to an approved drug may be extended. However, we may not receive an extension if we 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. 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 that product will be shortened and our competitors may obtain approval to market competing products sooner than we expect. Also, the scope of our right to exclude during any patent term extension period may be limited or may not cover a competitor’s product or product use. As a result, our revenue from applicable therapeutic candidates, if approved, could be reduced, possibly materially.

Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new drug candidates, patents protecting such drug candidates might expire before or shortly after such drug candidates are commercialized. As a result, our patents and patent applications may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours. If we are unable to obtain an exclusive license to any such third-party co-owners’ interest in such patents or patent applications, such co-owners may be able to license their rights to other third parties, including our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and technology. In addition, we may need the cooperation of any such co-owners of our patents in order to enforce such patents against third parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations and prospects.

Manufacturers of biosimilar drugs may challenge the scope, validity, or enforceability of our patents in court or before a patent office, and we may not be successful in enforcing or defending those intellectual property rights and, as a result, may not be able to develop or market the relevant product exclusively, which would have a material adverse effect on any potential sales of that product. Upon the expiration of our issued patents or patents that may issue from our pending patent applications, we will not be able to assert such patent rights against potential competitors and our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects may be adversely affected.

The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations, and may not adequately protect our business nor permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. The following examples are illustrative:

Risks Related to Government Regulation

Any product that we may attempt to develop, manufacture or market in the United States will be subject to extensive regulation by the FDA, including regulations relating to development, nonclinical testing, performance of clinical trials, manufacturing and post-approval commercialization. Nonclinical testing, clinical trials and manufacturing,

among other activities, will be subjected to an extensive review process before a new therapeutic product may be sold in the United States. Satisfaction of these and other regulatory requirements is costly, time consuming, uncertain and subject to unanticipated delays. The time required to obtain FDA approval, and any other required approvals for biological products is unpredictable but typically requires several years and may never be obtained.

Any product that we may wish to develop, manufacture or market in countries other than the United States will also be subject to numerous foreign regulatory requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing and marketing, pricing and third-party reimbursement among other things in such countries. The foreign marketing approval process includes all of the risks and uncertainties associated with FDA approval described above as well as risks attributable to the satisfaction of local regulations in such foreign jurisdictions.

In particular, obtaining marketing approval for biological products requires the submission of extensive nonclinical and clinical data and supporting information to regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the product candidate’s safety and efficacy. Securing marketing approval also requires the submission of information about the product manufacturing process, and in many cases the inspection of manufacturing, processing, and packaging facilities by the regulatory authorities. Our product candidates may not be effective, may be only moderately effective or may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that may preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use, or there may be deficiencies in cGMP compliance by us or by our contract development and manufacturing organizations, or CDMOs, that could result in the candidate not being approved. Moreover, we have not obtained marketing approval for any therapeutic candidate in any jurisdiction and it is possible that none of our existing therapeutic candidates or any therapeutic candidates we may seek to develop in the future will ever obtain marketing approval.

Our therapeutic candidates could fail to receive, or could be materially delayed in receiving, marketing approval for many reasons, including any one or more of the following:

It is possible that none of the therapeutic candidates we may develop will obtain the marketing approvals necessary for us to sell the products either in the United States or any other country. Furthermore, approval by the FDA of a therapeutic product does not assure approval by regulatory authorities outside the United States or vice versa. Even if approval for a therapeutic product is obtained, such approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses or appropriate patient population that could result in a significantly reduced potential market size for the product.

If we fail to obtain the appropriate marketing approvals necessary for us to sell our therapeutic candidates, or if the approvals are more limited than those that we intend to seek, our business, financial condition and results of operations would be materially harmed.

Even if we receive marketing and commercialization approval for a therapeutic candidate, we will be subject to continuing post-marketing regulatory requirements. Our potential products, further development activities and manufacturing and distribution of a future product, once developed and determined, will be subject to extensive and rigorous regulation by numerous government agencies, including the FDA and comparable foreign agencies. To varying degrees, each of these agencies monitors and enforces our compliance with laws and regulations governing the development, testing, manufacturing, labeling, marketing, distribution, and the safety and effectiveness of our therapeutic candidates and, if approved, our future products. The process of obtaining marketing approval or clearance from the FDA and comparable foreign bodies for new products, or for enhancements, expansion of the indications or modifications to existing products, could:

Any of these occurrences may cause our operations or potential for success to suffer, harm our competitive standing and result in further losses that adversely affect our financial condition.

The FDA, as well as its foreign regulatory counterparts, also have significant post-market authority, including the authority to require labeling changes based on new safety information and to require post-market studies or clinical trials to evaluate safety risks related to the use of a product or to require withdrawal of the product from the market. Additionally, the FDA regulates the promotional claims that may be made about prescription products, such as our products, if approved. In particular, a product may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA as reflected in the product’s approved labeling. However, we may share truthful and not misleading information with healthcare providers and payors that is otherwise consistent with the product’s FDA approved labeling.

We will have ongoing responsibilities under these and other FDA and international regulations, both before and after a product is approved and commercially released. Compliance with applicable regulatory requirements is subject to continual review and is monitored rigorously through periodic inspections by the FDA and foreign regulatory agencies. If we or our manufacturers or service providers fail to comply with applicable continuing regulatory requirements in the United States or foreign jurisdictions in which we seek to market our products, we or they may be subject to, among other things, fines, warning letters, adverse regulatory inspection finding, holds on clinical trials, delay of approval or refusal by the FDA or applicable authorities to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications, suspension or withdrawal of marketing approval, product recalls and seizures, administrative detention of products, refusal to permit the import or export of products, operating restrictions, exclusion of eligibility from government contracts, injunctions, civil penalties or criminal prosecution. Any adverse regulatory action, depending on its magnitude, may restrict us from effectively commercializing our potential products and harm our business. In addition, negative publicity and product liability claims resulting from any adverse regulatory action could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

To augment our U.S.-centric clinical strategy, we have previously formed partnerships in China designed to provide access patient populations for clinical trials not readily available in the United States and to facilitate rapid patient enrollment with the goal of generating more robust early clinical data from patients in China. We may in the future pursue partnerships to conduct clinical trials outside of the United States. The acceptance of study data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States or another jurisdiction by the FDA, EMA or applicable foreign regulatory authority may be subject to certain conditions. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the 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 and (ii) the trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence and pursuant to GCP regulations. For example, in February 2022, the FDA publicly rebuked an oncology product sponsor for submitting a marketing application with Phase III clinical data solely from China and since that time, it has declined to approve other applications that contained primarily China-generated clinical data. Additionally, the FDA’s clinical trial requirements, including sufficient size of patient populations and statistical powering, must be met. Many foreign regulatory bodies have similar approval requirements. In addition, any 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, EMA or any applicable foreign regulatory authority will accept data from trials conducted outside of the United States or the applicable jurisdiction, including any trials conducted in China.

Under its current leadership, the government of China has been pursuing economic reform policies, including by encouraging foreign trade and investment. However, there is no assurance that the Chinese government will continue to pursue such policies, that such policies will be successfully implemented, that such policies will not be significantly altered, or that such policies will be beneficial to our partnerships in China. China’s system of laws can be unpredictable, especially with respect to foreign investment and foreign trade. The U.S. government has called for substantial changes to foreign trade policy with China and has raised, and has proposed to further raise in the future, tariffs on several Chinese goods. China has retaliated with increased tariffs on U.S. goods. Moreover, China’s legislature has adopted a national security law to substantially change the way Hong Kong has been governed since the territory was handed over by the United Kingdom to China in 1997. This law increases the power of the central government in Beijing over Hong Kong, limit the civil liberties of residents of Hong Kong and could restrict the ability of businesses in Hong Kong to continue to conduct business or to continue to with business as previously conducted. The U.S. State Department has indicated that the United States no longer considers Hong Kong to have significant autonomy from China. The U.S. State Department previously enacted sanctions related to China’s governing of Hong Kong, and the United States may impose the same tariffs and other trade restrictions on exports from Hong Kong that it places on goods from mainland China. Any further changes in United States trade policy could trigger retaliatory actions by affected countries, including China, resulting in trade wars. For example, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act bans imports from China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region unless it can be shown that the goods were not produced using forced labor and this legislation may have an adverse effect on global supply chains which could adversely impact our business and results of operations. Additionally, the biopharmaceutical industry in particular in China is strictly regulated by the Chinese government. Changes to Chinese regulations affecting biopharmaceutical companies are also unpredictable. Any regulatory changes and changes in United States and China relations may have a material adverse effect on our partnerships in China which could materially harm our business and financial condition.

There is increasing pressure on biotechnology companies to reduce healthcare costs. In the United States, these pressures come from a variety of sources, such as managed care groups and institutional and government purchasers. Increased purchasing power of entities that negotiate on behalf of federal healthcare programs and private sector beneficiaries could increase pricing pressures in the future. Such pressures may also increase the risk of litigation or

investigation by the government regarding pricing calculations. The biotechnology industry will likely face greater regulation and political and legal actions in the future.

Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more future therapeutic candidates, even if our future therapeutic candidates obtain marketing approval. Adverse pricing limitations prior to approval will also adversely affect us by reducing our commercial potential. Our ability to commercialize any potential products successfully also will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and reimbursement for these products and related treatments becomes available from third-party payors, including government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. Third-party payors decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. In addition, companion diagnostic tests require coverage and reimbursement separate and apart from the coverage and reimbursement for their companion pharmaceutical or biological products. Similar challenges to obtaining coverage and reimbursement, applicable to pharmaceutical or biological products, will apply to companion diagnostics.

A significant trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. Additionally, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or the IRA, authorized Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, to negotiate drug prices annually for a select number of single source Part D drugs without generic or biosimilar competition starting in payment year 2026, and to negotiate drug prices for a select number of Part B drugs starting for payment year 2028. If a drug product is selected by CMS for negotiation, it is expected that the revenue generated from such drug will decrease. CMS has begun to implement these new authorities and entered into the first set of agreements with pharmaceutical manufacturers to conduct price negotiations in October 2023. However, the IRA’s impact on the biopharmaceutical industry in the United States remains uncertain, in part because multiple large pharmaceutical companies and other stakeholders (e.g., the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) have initiated federal lawsuits against CMS arguing the program is unconstitutional for a variety of reasons, among other complaints. Those lawsuits are currently ongoing.

We cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement will be available for any product that we commercialize in the future and, if reimbursement is available, what the level of reimbursement will be. Reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product for which we obtain marketing approval in the future. If reimbursement is not available or is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any therapeutic candidate that we successfully develop.

There may be significant delays in obtaining reimbursement for approved products, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the product is approved by the FDA or regulatory authorities in other countries. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that any product will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution. Interim payments for new products, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Payment rates may vary according to the use of the product and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on payments allowed for lower cost products that are already reimbursed and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Net prices for products may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by third-party payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of products from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement policies, but also have their own methods and approval process apart from Medicare coverage and reimbursement determinations. Accordingly, one third-party payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the product. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors for approved products could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize potential products and our overall financial condition.

Third-party payors, whether domestic or foreign, or governmental or commercial, are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs. In both the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the foreign, federal, and state levels directed at containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. We cannot predict the initiatives that may be adopted in the future. The continuing efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed care organizations, and other payors of healthcare services to contain or reduce costs of healthcare and/or impose price controls may adversely affect:

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 includes measures that have significantly changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers in the United States. It also included the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, or BPCIA, which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. The ACA continues to significantly impact the United States’ pharmaceutical industry.

Moreover, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products.

At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In December 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that federal law does not preempt the states’ ability to regulate pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs, and other members of the health care and pharmaceutical supply chain, an important decision that has led to more aggressive efforts by states in this area. The Federal Trade Commission in mid-2022 also launched sweeping investigations into the practices of the PBM industry that could lead to additional federal and state legislative or regulatory proposals targeting such entities’ operations, pharmacy networks, or financial arrangements. During the current congressional session, numerous PBM reforms are being considered in both the Senate and the House of Representatives; they include diverse legislative proposals such as eliminating rebates; divorcing service fees from the price of a drug, discount, or rebate; prohibiting spread pricing; limiting administrative fees; requiring PBMs to report formulary placement rationale; promoting transparency. Significant efforts to change the PBM industry as it currently exists in the U.S. may affect the entire biopharmaceutical supply chain and the business of other stakeholders, including therapeutic biological product developers like us.

We expect that the ACA, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, more rigorous coverage criteria, lower reimbursement, and new payment methodologies. This could lower the price that we receive for any approved product. Any denial in coverage or reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government-funded programs may result in a similar denial or reduction in payments from private payors, which may prevent us from being able to generate sufficient revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our therapeutic candidates, if approved.

In the European Union, similar political, economic and regulatory developments may affect our ability to profitably commercialize our current or any future products. In addition to continuing pressure on prices and cost containment

measures, legislative developments at the European Union or member state level may result in significant additional requirements or obstacles that may increase our operating costs. In international markets, reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country, and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific products and therapies. Our future products, if any, might not be considered medically reasonable and necessary for a specific indication or cost-effective by third-party payors, an adequate level of reimbursement might not be available for such products and third-party payors’ reimbursement policies might adversely affect our ability to sell any future products profitably.

Legislative and regulatory proposals have also been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for biologic therapeutics, and FDA’s statutory authorities are periodically amended by Congress. For example, as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2023, Congress provided FDA additional authorities related to the accelerated approval pathway for human drugs and biologics. Under these amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, the agency may require a sponsor of a product granted accelerated approval to have a confirmatory trial underway prior to approval. The amendments also give FDA the option of using expedited procedures to withdraw product approval if the sponsor’s confirmatory trial fails to verify the claimed clinical benefits of the product. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the marketing approvals of our therapeutic candidates, if any, may be. Increased scrutiny by the U.S. Congress of the FDA’s approval process may significantly delay or prevent marketing approval, as well as subject us to more stringent product labeling and post-approval testing and other requirements.

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, our therapeutic candidates may lose any marketing approval that may have been obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business.

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any therapeutic candidates for which we may obtain marketing approval. Our current and future arrangements with healthcare providers, third-party payors and customers expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute our therapeutic candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. In addition, we may be subject to patient data privacy and security regulation by both the U.S. federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations, include the following:

Ensuring that our future business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations could involve substantial costs. 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 such requirements, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, including monetary damages, fines, disgorgements, imprisonment, loss of eligibility to obtain approvals from the FDA, exclusion from participation in government contracting, healthcare reimbursement or other government programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting requirements if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with any of these laws, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely our financial results. Although effective compliance programs can mitigate the risk of investigation and prosecution for violations of these laws, these risks cannot be entirely eliminated. Any action against us for an alleged or suspected violation could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and could divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business, even if our defense is successful. In addition, achieving and sustaining compliance with applicable laws and regulations may be costly to us in terms of money, time and resources.

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition or for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available in the United States a drug or biologic for a disease or condition will be recovered from sales in the United States for that drug or biologic. If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including a full BLA, to market the same drug or biologic for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity.

We received orphan drug status for ozekibart (INBRX-109) for the treatment of patients with metastatic or unresectable chondrosarcoma. We may seek orphan drug status for additional therapeutic candidates, but the FDA may not grant any such request. Even with orphan drug status, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be limited if we seek FDA marketing approval for an indication broader than the therapeutic candidate’s orphan designated indication. Additionally, any therapeutic candidate that initially receives orphan drug status designation, may lose such designation if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. In addition, others may obtain orphan drug status and then achieve marketing approval and exclusivity before us for products addressing the same diseases or conditions as products we are developing, thus limiting our ability to compete in the markets addressing such diseases or conditions for a significant period of time.

We aim to benefit from the FDA’s Fast Track and priority review processes. We received fast-track designation for ozekibart (INBRX-109) for the treatment of patients with metastatic or unresectable chondrosarcoma. Under fast-track designation, the FDA may initiate a rolling review of sections of a fast-track drug’s BLA before the application is complete. However, the FDA’s time period goal for reviewing an application does not begin until the last section of the BLA is submitted. Additionally, the fast-track designation may be withdrawn by the FDA if the FDA believes that the designation is no longer supported by data emerging in the clinical trial process. Under the FDA policies, a drug candidate is eligible for priority review, or review within a six-month time frame from the time a complete BLA is accepted for filing, if the drug candidate provides a significant improvement compared to marketed drugs in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a disease. A fast-track designated drug candidate would ordinarily meet the FDA’s criteria for priority review.

The fast-track designation for ozekibart (INBRX-109), or for other future therapeutic candidates, may not actually lead to a faster review process and a delay in the review process or in the approval of our potential products will delay revenue from their potential sales and will increase the capital necessary to fund these product development programs. Without fast-track designation, submitting a BLA and getting through the regulatory process to gain marketing approval is a lengthier process.

Even if we are successful in achieving marketing approval to commercialize a therapeutic candidate ahead of our competitors, our future therapeutic candidates may face direct competition from biosimilar products. In the United States, our therapeutic candidates are regulated by the FDA as biological products, and we intend to seek approval for these therapeutic candidates pursuant to the BLA pathway. The BPCIA created an abbreviated pathway for the FDA approval of biosimilar biological products based on a previously licensed innovator, or reference, biological product. Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar biological product cannot be approved by the FDA until 12 years after the original reference biological product was approved under a BLA.

We believe that any of our therapeutic candidates approved as a biological product under a BLA should qualify for the 12-year period of exclusivity available to reference biological products. However, there is a risk that this exclusivity could be shortened due to Congressional action or otherwise, or that the FDA will not consider our therapeutic candidates to be reference biological products pursuant to its interpretation of the exclusivity provisions of the BPCIA, potentially creating the opportunity for follow-on biosimilar competition sooner than anticipated. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar product, once approved, will be substituted for any one of our reference products in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biological products is not yet clear, and will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing including whether a future competitor seeks an interchangeability designation for a biosimilar of one of our products. Under the BPCIA as well as state pharmacy laws, only so-called “interchangeable” biosimilar products are considered substitutable for the reference biological product without the intervention of the healthcare provider who prescribed the original biological product. However, as with all prescribing decisions made in the context of a patient-provider relationship and a patient’s specific medical needs, healthcare providers are not restricted from prescribing biosimilar products in an off-label manner. In addition, a competitor could decide to forego the abbreviated approval pathway available for

biosimilar products and to submit a full BLA for product licensure after completing its own nonclinical studies and clinical trials. In such a situation, any exclusivity to which we may be eligible under the BPCIA would not prevent the competitor from marketing its biological product as soon as it is approved.

In Europe, the European Commission has granted marketing authorizations for many biosimilar products pursuant to a set of general and product class-specific guidelines for biosimilar approvals issued over the past few years. In addition, companies may be developing biosimilar products in other countries that could compete with our products, if approved.

If competitors are able to obtain marketing approval for biosimilars referencing our therapeutic candidates, if approved, our future products may become subject to competition from such biosimilars, whether or not they are designated as interchangeable, with the attendant competitive pressure and potential adverse consequences. Such competitive products may be able to immediately compete with us in each indication for which our therapeutic candidates may have received approval.

The regulatory environment surrounding information security, data collection and privacy is increasingly demanding. We are subject to numerous U.S. federal and state laws and non-U.S. regulations, including in Europe and China, governing the protection of personal and confidential information of our clinical subjects, clinical investigators, employees and vendors/business contacts, including in relation to medical records, credit card data and financial information. In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including federal health information privacy laws, state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws (e.g., Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA), that govern the collection, use, disclosure and protection of health-related and other personal information could apply to our operations, and the privacy regulatory area is in constant flux. The state of California, for example, has adopted the CCPA, which went into effect beginning in January 2020. The CCPA establishes a new privacy framework for covered businesses by creating an expanded definition of personal information, establishing new data privacy rights for residents of the State of California, imposing special rules on the collection of personal information from minors, and creating a new and potentially severe statutory damages framework for violations of the CCPA and for businesses that fail to implement reasonable security procedures and practices to prevent data breaches. While there is currently an exception under CCPA for protected health information that is subject to HIPAA and clinical trial regulations, CCPA still applies to the personal information of employees and may otherwise impact our business. In November of 2020, California voters approved the California Privacy Rights Act, or CPRA, which took full effect on January 1, 2023. The CPRA amends the CCPA significantly, potentially resulting in further uncertainty, additional costs and expenses in an effort to comply, and additional harm and liability for failure to comply. Among other things, the CPRA established a new regulatory authority, the California Privacy Protection Agency, or CPPA, which has expanded enforcement authority. Further, the CPPA has introduced significant draft regulations under the CPRA which could have operational effects on our business and further uncertainty with respect to enforcement. Comprehensive privacy laws similar to the CCPA in Virginia, Colorado, Connecticut, and Utah all took effect in 2023, and laws in Montana, Oregon and Texas will take effect in 2024, increasing the regulatory compliance risk. Like the General Data Protection Regulation, the GDPR, many of these state laws categorize medical or health data, genetic data, and biometric data that can be used to identify a natural person as “sensitive data” and the processing or collection of such will require additional compliance obligations.

In the European Union, or EU, the GDPR, which came into effect on May 25, 2018, could increase our burden of regulatory compliance. The GDPR implements more stringent operational requirements for processors and controllers of personal data, including, for example, requiring expanded disclosures about how personal information is to be used, limitations on retention of information, mandatory data breach notification requirements, and higher standards for data controllers to demonstrate that they have obtained either valid consent or have another legal basis in place to justify their data processing activities. The GDPR further provides that EU member states may make their own additional laws and regulations in relation to certain data processing activities, which could further limit our ability to use and share personal data and could require localized changes to our operating model. Under the GDPR, fines of up to €20 million or up to 4% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year,

whichever is higher, may be assessed for noncompliance, which significantly increases our potential financial exposure for non-compliance.

We will be subject to the GDPR where we have a European Union presence or “establishment” (e.g. European Union based subsidiary or operations), when conducting clinical trials with European Union based data subjects (whether the trials are conducted directly by us or through a clinical vendor or partner) or offering approved products or services (if relevant) to European Union based data subjects (regardless of whether involving our European Union based subsidiary or operations).

The GDPR sets out a number of requirements that must be complied with when processing the personal data of such EU based data subjects including: providing expanded disclosures about how their personal data will be used; higher standards for organizations to demonstrate that they have obtained valid consent or have another legal basis in place to justify their data processing activities; the obligation to appoint data protection officers in certain circumstances; new rights for individuals to be “forgotten” and rights to data portability, as well as enhanced current rights (e.g. access requests); the principal of accountability and demonstrating compliance through policies, procedures, training and audit; the new mandatory data breach regime. In particular, medical or health data, genetic data and biometric data where the latter is used to uniquely identify an individual are all classified as “special category” data under the GDPR and afford greater protection and require additional compliance obligations. Further, EU member states have a broad right to impose additional conditions — including restrictions — on these data categories. This is because the GDPR allows EU member states to derogate from the requirements of the GDPR mainly in regard to specific processing situations (including special category data and processing for scientific or statistical purposes). As the EU states continue to reframe their national legislation to harmonize with the GDPR, we will need to monitor compliance with all relevant EU member states’ laws and regulations, including where permitted derogations from the GDPR are introduced.

We will also be subject to evolving EU laws on data export, where we transfer data outside the EU to group companies or third parties. The GDPR only permits exports of data outside the EU where there is a suitable data transfer solution in place to safeguard personal data (e.g. the EU Commission approved Standard Contractual Clauses or the recently-adopted EU-US Data Privacy Framework). On July 16, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union, or the CJEU, issued a landmark opinion in the case Maximilian Schrems vs. Facebook (Case C-311/18), called Schrems II. This decision (i) calls into question certain data transfer mechanisms as between the EU member states and the United States (such as the Standard Contractual Clauses) and (ii) invalidates the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield on which many companies had relied as an acceptable mechanism for transferring such data from the EU to the U.S. The CJEU is the highest court in Europe and the Schrems II decision heightens the burden on data importers to assess the impact of U.S. national security laws on their business and future actions of EU data protection authorities are difficult to predict. While the recently-adopted EU-US Data Privacy Framework was meant to address the concerns raised by the CJEU in Schrems II, it will likely be subject to future legal challenges. Further, the EU-US Data Privacy Framework is only available to companies who have completed a self-certification and application. We have not self-certified to the EU-US Data Privacy Framework, and consequently, there is some risk of any of our data transfers from the European Union being halted by one or more EU member states.

Where we rely on third parties to carry out a number of services for us, including processing personal data on our behalf, we are required under GDPR and the U.S. state privacy laws to enter into contractual arrangements to help ensure that these third parties only process such data according to our instructions and have sufficient security measures in place. Any security breach or non-compliance with our contractual terms or breach of applicable law by such third parties could result in enforcement actions, litigation, fines and penalties or adverse publicity and could cause our customers to lose trust in us, which could have an adverse impact on our reputation and business. Any contractual arrangements requiring the transfer of personal data from the EU to us in the United States requires greater scrutiny and assessments as required under Schrems II and may have an adverse impact on cross-border transfers of personal data or increase costs of compliance.

Our partnerships in China and our CRO relationships in Hong Kong may expose us to new and stringent Chinese data security laws. The Data Security Law of the People’s Republic of China, or the PRC Data Security Law, took effect on September 1, 2021. The PRC Data Security Law requires data processing, which includes the collection, storage, use, processing, transmission, provision and publication of data, to be conducted in a legitimate and proper

manner. Moreover, the PRC Data Security Law provides a national security review procedure for those data processing activities which affect or may affect national security and imposes export restrictions on certain data and information. In addition, the PRC Data Security Law also provides that any organization or individual within the territory of the PRC shall not provide any foreign judicial body and law enforcement body with any data stored in the territory of the PRC without the approval of the competent PRC governmental authorities. Also in China, the Personal Information Protection Law, which took effect on November 1, 2021, introduced stringent protection requirements for processing personal information. We may be required to make further significant adjustments to our business practices to comply with data security and personal information protection laws in China.

In recent years, U.S. and European lawmakers and regulators have expressed concern over electronic marketing. In the EU, marketing is defined broadly to include any promotional material and the rules specifically on e-marketing are currently set out in the ePrivacy Directive which will be replaced by a new ePrivacy Regulation. While the ePrivacy Regulation was originally intended to be adopted on May 25, 2018 (alongside the GDPR), it is still going through the European legislative process. Once the regulation is adopted, there will be a two-year implementation period. The current draft of the ePrivacy Regulation imposes strict opt-in e-marketing rules with limited exceptions to business-to-business communications and significantly increases fining powers to the same levels as GDPR (see above). In the United States, the state privacy laws in California, Virginia, Colorado, Connecticut, and Utah include provisions regulating certain types of behavioral marketing and require companies to analyze online marketing and, in some cases, require opt-out mechanisms, increasing operational expenses and risk. The Federal Trade Commission has also issued a notice of proposed rulemaking with respect to online marketing and data collection.

We may find it necessary or desirable to join self-regulatory bodies or other privacy-related organizations, particularly relating to biopharmacy and/or scientific research that may require compliance with their rules pertaining to privacy and data security.

The introduction of the GDPR, and any resultant changes in EU member states’ national laws and regulations and the ePrivacy Regulation, will increase our compliance obligations and will necessitate the review and implementation of policies and processes relating to our collection and use of data. This increase in compliance obligations could also lead to an increase in compliance costs which may have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

If any person, including any of our employees, clinical vendors or partners or those with whom we share such information, negligently disregards or intentionally breaches our established controls with respect to our clinical subject, clinical investigator or employee data, or otherwise mismanages or misappropriates that data, we could be subject to significant monetary damages, regulatory enforcement actions, fines and/or criminal prosecution in one or more jurisdictions. As above, under the GDPR there are significant new punishments for non-compliance which could result in a penalty of up to 4% of a firm’s global annual revenue.

Applicable laws may conflict with each other, and by complying with the laws or regulations of one jurisdiction, we may find that we are violating the laws or regulations of another jurisdiction. Despite our efforts, we may not have fully complied in the past and may not in the future. If we become liable under laws or regulations applicable to us, we could be required to pay significant fines and penalties, our reputation may be harmed and we may be forced to change the way we operate. That could require us to incur significant expenses or to discontinue certain services, which could negatively affect our business.

We are increasingly dependent upon technology systems and data to operate our business. In particular, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused us to modify our business practices, including in certain cases allowing office-based employees in the United States to work from home. As a result, we are increasingly dependent upon our technology systems to operate our business and our ability to effectively manage our business depends on the security, reliability and adequacy of our technology systems and data, which includes use of cloud technologies. A breakdown, invasion, corruption, destruction or breach of our technology systems, including the cloud technologies that we utilize, and/or unauthorized access to our data and information could subject us to liability or negatively impact the operation of our business. Our technology systems, including the cloud technologies that we utilize, continue to increase in multitude and complexity, making them potentially vulnerable to breakdown, malicious intrusion and random attack. Likewise, data privacy or security breaches by individuals authorized to access our

technology systems, including the cloud technologies that we utilize, may pose a risk that sensitive data, including intellectual property, trade secrets or personal information belonging to us, our patients, customers or other business partners, may be exposed to unauthorized persons or to the public.

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

We maintain quantities of various flammable and toxic chemicals in our facilities in La Jolla, California required for our research and development activities. We are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations governing the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of these hazardous materials. We believe our procedures for storing, handling and disposing these hazardous materials in our La Jolla facilities comply with the relevant guidelines of La Jolla, the state of California and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor. Although we believe that our safety procedures for handling and disposing of these materials comply with the standards mandated by applicable regulations, the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials cannot be eliminated. If an accident occurs, we could be held liable for resulting damages, which could be substantial. We are also subject to numerous environmental, health and workplace safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures, exposure to blood-borne pathogens and the handling of animals and biohazardous materials. Any insurance coverage we have may not be sufficient to cover these liabilities. Additional federal, state and local laws and regulations affecting our operations may be adopted in the future. We may incur substantial costs to comply with, and substantial fines or penalties if we violate, any of these laws or regulations which would adversely affect our business.

Our future growth may depend, in part, on our ability to develop and commercialize our therapeutic candidates, if approved, in foreign markets for which we may rely on collaboration with third parties. We are not permitted to market or promote any of our therapeutic candidates before we receive marketing approval from the applicable regulatory authority in that foreign market, and we may never receive such marketing approval for any of our therapeutic candidates. To obtain separate marketing approval in many other countries we must comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of such countries regarding safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials and commercial sales, pricing and distribution of our therapeutic candidates, and we cannot predict success in these jurisdictions. If we obtain approval of our therapeutic candidates and ultimately commercialize our therapeutic candidates in foreign markets, we would be subject to the risks and uncertainties,

including the burden of complying with complex and changing foreign regulatory, tax, accounting and legal requirements and the reduced protection of intellectual property rights in some foreign countries. We may need to rely on third parties to market, distribute and sell our products in foreign markets.

Our Common Stock was listed on the Nasdaq Global Market on May 30, 2024. Although trading in our Common Stock has developed, we cannot assure you that an active trading market will continue to develop or be sustained or that any trading market will be liquid. The lack of an active market may impair your ability to sell your shares at the time you wish to sell them or at a price that you consider reasonable. The lack of an active market may also reduce the fair market value of your shares. Furthermore, an inactive market may also impair our ability to raise capital by selling shares of our Common Stock and may impair our ability to enter into strategic collaborations or acquire companies, technologies or other assets by using our shares of Common Stock as consideration.

The trading price of shares of our Common Stock may be highly volatile and could be subject to wide fluctuations in response to many risk factors listed in this section, and others beyond our control, including:

These and other market and industry factors may cause the market price and demand for our Common Stock to fluctuate substantially, regardless of our actual operating performance. In addition, the stock market in general, and life science companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies. In the past, when the market price of a stock has been volatile, holders of that stock have on occasion instituted securities class action litigation against the company that issued the stock. If any of our stockholders were to bring a lawsuit against us, the defense and disposition of the lawsuit could be costly and divert the time and attention of our management and harm our operating results.

As of May 30, 2024, our executive officers, directors and holders of more than 5% of our capital stock beneficially owned approximately 46% of our shares of Common Stock outstanding. Accordingly, these stockholders have significant control over our operations. This concentration of ownership could have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in our control or otherwise discouraging a potential acquirer from attempting to obtain control of us, which in turn could have a material adverse effect on our stock price and may prevent attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove the board of directors or management.

Our stock price could decline as a result of sales of a large number of shares of our Common Stock or the perception that these sales could occur. These sales, or the possibility that these sales may occur, also might make it more difficult for us to sell equity securities in the future at a time and at a price that we deem appropriate.

As of May 30, 2024, we had 14,475,904 shares of our Common Stock outstanding. All of our shares of Common Stock issued in the Distribution are freely tradable without restriction or further registration under the Securities Act unless the shares are owned by our “affiliates” as that term is defined in the rules under the Securities Act or are subject to other contractual restrictions. Shares held by “affiliates” may be sold in the public market only if registered or if they qualify for an exemption from registration or in compliance with Rule 144 under the Securities Act, or Rule 144. Shares held by the Former Parent may be sold, subject to compliance with applicable securities laws.

We have reserved approximately 4,000,000 shares for future grants under our Omnibus Incentive Plan. Any Common Stock that we issue, including under our Omnibus Incentive Plan or other equity incentive plans that we may adopt in the future, would dilute the percentage ownership held by our existing stockholders.

As of May 30, 2024 issued and outstanding warrants to purchase shares of our Common Stock consisted of Warrants to purchase up to 991,849 shares of Common Stock. To the extent any of these Warrants are exercised, additional shares of our Common Stock will be issued, which will result in dilution to the holders of our shares of Common Stock and an increase in the number of shares eligible for resale in the public market, subject to compliance with applicable securities laws. The holders of Warrants have certain registration rights with respect to our Common Stock.

We cannot predict what effect, if any, sales of our shares in the public market or the availability of shares for sale will have on the market price of our Common Stock. However, future sales of substantial amounts of our Common Stock in the public market, including shares issued in the Distribution, shares retained by the Former Parent, shares issued under our Omnibus Incentive Plan or shares issued upon exercise of the Warrants, or the perception that such sales may occur, could adversely affect the market price of our Common Stock.

We may seek additional capital through a combination of public and private equity offerings, debt financings, strategic partnerships and alliances, and licensing arrangements. We, and indirectly, our stockholders, will bear the cost of issuing and servicing such securities. Because our decision to issue debt or equity securities in any future offering will depend on market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing, or nature of any future offerings. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or debt securities, your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a stockholder. The incurrence of indebtedness would result in increased fixed payment obligations and could involve restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt, limitations on our ability to acquire, sell, or license intellectual property rights and other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. Additionally, any future collaborations we enter into with third parties may provide capital in the near term but limit our potential cash flow and revenue in the future. If we raise additional funds through strategic partnerships and alliances and licensing

arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies or product candidates, or grant licenses on terms unfavorable to us.

The trading market for our Common Stock will be influenced by the research and reports that industry or securities analysts publish about us or our business. If one or more of the analysts who cover us issues an adverse opinion about our company, our stock price could decline. If one or more of these analysts ceases coverage of us or fails to regularly publish reports on us, we could lose visibility in the public markets, which could cause our stock price or trading volume to decline.

Our Common Stock began trading on the Nasdaq Global Market on May 30, 2024. We cannot assure you that, in the future, our securities will meet the continued listing requirements to be listed on the Nasdaq Global Market. If Nasdaq delists our Common Stock, we could face significant material adverse consequences, including:

We currently anticipate that we will retain future earnings for the development, operation and expansion of our business and do not anticipate declaring or paying any cash dividends for the foreseeable future. Future debt financing agreements may limit or require us to have the lender’s permission before declaring dividends on our Common Stock. Any return to stockholders will therefore be limited to the appreciation of their stock.

Effective internal controls over financial reporting are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and, together with adequate disclosure controls and procedures, are designed to prevent fraud. Any failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation could cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. Pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or Section 404, our management will be required to report upon the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting.

The rules governing the standards that must be met for management to assess our internal control over financial reporting are complex and require significant documentation, testing and possible remediation. To comply with the requirements of being a reporting company under the Exchange Act, we will need to implement additional financial and management controls, reporting systems and procedures.

We cannot assure you that there will not be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies identified in our internal control over financial reporting in the future. Any failure to maintain internal control over financial reporting could severely inhibit our ability to accurately report our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. In the future, if we are unable to conclude that our internal control over financial reporting is effective, or if our independent registered public accounting firm determines we have a material weakness or significant deficiency in our internal control over financial reporting, investors may lose confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports, the market price of our Common Stock could decline, and we could be subject to sanctions or investigations by Nasdaq, the SEC, or other regulatory authorities. Failure to remedy any material weakness in our

internal control over financial reporting, or to implement or maintain other effective control systems required of public companies, could also restrict our future access to the capital markets.

If we become an “accelerated filer,” as defined in the Exchange Act, our independent registered public accounting firm will be required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404. An independent assessment of the effectiveness of our internal controls could detect problems that our management’s assessment might not. Undetected material weaknesses in our internal controls could lead to financial statement restatements and require us to incur the expense of remediation.

As a public company, we incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we would not incur as a private company. We are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, which require, among other things, that we file with the SEC annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to our business and financial condition. In addition, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act as well as rules subsequently adopted by the SEC and Nasdaq to implement provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, impose significant requirements on public companies, including requiring establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and changes in corporate governance practices. Further, in July 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, or the Dodd-Frank Act, was enacted. There are significant corporate governance and executive compensation-related provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act that require the SEC to adopt additional rules and regulations in these areas such as “say on pay” and proxy access. Stockholder activism, the current political environment and the current high level of government intervention and regulatory reform may lead to substantial new regulations and disclosure obligations, which may lead to additional compliance costs and impact the manner in which we operate our business in ways we cannot currently anticipate. If the rules and regulations applicable to public companies divert the attention of our management and personnel from other business concerns, they could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. The impact of these requirements could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified persons to serve on our board of directors, our board committees or as executive officers.

Our certificate of incorporation, bylaws and Delaware law contains provisions that could have the effect of rendering more difficult, delaying or preventing an acquisition deemed undesirable by our board of directors. Our corporate governance documents include provisions:

These provisions, alone or together, could delay or prevent hostile takeovers and changes in control or changes in our management.

As a Delaware corporation, we are also subject to provisions of Delaware law, including Section 203 of the DGCL, which prevents some stockholders holding more than 15% of our outstanding Common Stock from engaging in certain business combinations without approval of the holders of substantially all of our outstanding Common Stock.

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

Our certificate of incorporation requires, unless we otherwise consent, that the Chancery Court will, to the fullest extent permitted by law, be the sole and exclusive forum for the following types of actions or proceedings under Delaware statutory or common law (subject to the Chancery Court having personal jurisdiction over the indispensable parties named as defendants): (i) any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf, (ii) any action or proceeding asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any of our current or former directors, officers and employees to us or our stockholders, (iii) any action or proceeding asserting a claim against us or any of our current or former directors, officers or employees of the Company, arising out of or pursuant to any provision of the DGCL, our certificate of incorporation or our bylaws, (iv) any action or proceeding to interpret, apply, enforce or determine the validity of our certificate of incorporation or our bylaws, (v) any action or proceeding as to which the DGCL confers jurisdiction to the Chancery Court, or (vi) any action or proceeding asserting a claim against us, or our directors, officers or employees, governed by the internal affairs doctrine. If the Chancery Court does not have jurisdiction for these actions or proceedings, then the actions or proceedings must be brought in a state court located in the State of Delaware. If these state courts also do not have jurisdiction, these actions or proceedings must be brought in the District Court of Delaware. These limitations in our certificate of incorporation will not apply to actions brought to enforce a duty or liability created by the Securities Act, the Exchange Act or to any claim for which the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction. However, our certificate of incorporation also provides that, unless we otherwise consent in writing, the federal district courts of the United States shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, be the sole and exclusive forum for the resolution of any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act. In addition, any person holding, owning or otherwise acquiring any interest in any shares of our capital stock shall be deemed to have notice of and to have consented to this provision of our certificate of incorporation. These Delaware and federal court choice of forum provisions may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers or employees, which may discourage such lawsuits against us and our directors, officers and employees even though an action, if successful, might benefit our stockholders. Stockholders who do bring a claim in the Chancery Court or the District Court of Delaware could face additional litigation costs in pursuing any such claim, particularly if they do not reside in or near the jurisdiction. The Chancery Court or the District Court of Delaware may also reach different judgments or results than would other courts, including courts where a stockholder considering an action may be located or would otherwise choose to bring the action, and such judgments or results may be more favorable to us than to our stockholders. Alternatively, if a court were to find these provisions of our certificate of incorporation inapplicable to, or unenforceable in respect of, one or more of the specified types of actions or proceedings, we may incur additional costs, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

On March 18, 2020, the Delaware Supreme Court ruled that provisions of a Delaware corporation’s certificate of incorporation that designate a federal forum for securities claims brought pursuant to the Securities Act, or federal forum provisions, are valid and enforceable under Delaware law, or the March 2020 Ruling. Various U.S. Supreme Court cases offer support for the argument that federal forum provisions do not violate federal policy. However, the March 2020 Ruling applies only to claims brought in Delaware state courts, and it is not binding on any other state court or the federal courts. Therefore, we are unable to predict whether a state court in any other state or a federal court would enforce a federal forum provision such as the one set forth in our certificate of incorporation.

The market price of our Common Stock may be volatile and, in the past, companies that have experienced volatility in the market price of their stock have been subject to securities class action litigation. Securities litigation against us could result in substantial costs and materially divert our management’s attention from other business concerns, which could seriously harm our business.

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act. For as long as we continue to be an “emerging growth company,” we may take advantage of exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not “emerging growth companies,” including not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements and exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and stockholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. As an “emerging growth company,” we are required to report only two years of financial results in certain Securities Act registration statements. We may take advantage of these exemptions until we are no longer an “emerging growth company.” We will remain an “emerging growth company” for up to five years after the completion of the Distribution, although we will lose that status sooner if our revenues exceed $1.235 billion, if we issue more than $1 billion in non-convertible debt in a three-year period, or if the market value of our Common Stock that are held by non-affiliates exceeds $700 million as of June 30 of a fiscal year. We cannot predict if investors will find our Common Stock less attractive because we may rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our Common Stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our Common Stock and the price of our Common Stock may be more volatile than that of an otherwise comparable company that does not avail itself of the same or similar exemptions.

We are a “smaller reporting company” as defined in Rule 12b-2 under the Exchange Act. For as long as we continue to be a smaller reporting company, we may take advantage of exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not smaller reporting companies, including reduced financial statement and other financial information disclosure, and reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our annual and periodic reports and proxy statements. We will remain a smaller reporting company as long as either (i) the market value of our Common Stock held by non-affiliates is less than $250 million or (ii) our annual revenue is less than $100 million during the most recently completed fiscal year and the market value of our Common Stock held by non-affiliates is less than $700 million. Our public float is measured as of the last business day of our most recently completed second fiscal quarter, and annual revenues are as of the most recently completed fiscal year for which audited financial statements are available. We cannot predict if investors will find our Common Stock less attractive because we may rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our Common Stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our Common Stock and our share price may be more volatile than that of an otherwise comparable company that does not avail itself of the same or similar exemptions.

These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and assumptions, including those described in the section titled “Risk Factors” elsewhere in this prospectus. Moreover, we operate in a very competitive and rapidly changing environment, and new risks emerge from time to time. It is not possible for our management to predict all risks, nor can we assess the impact of all factors on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements we may make. In light of these risks, uncertainties and assumptions, the forward-looking events and circumstances discussed in this prospectus may not occur and actual results could differ materially and adversely from those anticipated or implied in the forward-looking statements. In addition, statements that “we believe” and similar statements reflect our beliefs and opinions on the relevant subject. These statements are based upon information available to us as of the date of this prospectus, and while we believe such information forms a reasonable basis for such statements, such information may be limited or incomplete, and our statements should not be read to indicate that we have conducted an exhaustive inquiry into, or review of, all potentially available relevant information. These statements are inherently uncertain and investors are cautioned not to unduly rely upon these statements.

You should not rely upon forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, we cannot guarantee that the future results, levels of activity, performance or events and circumstances reflected in the forward-looking statements will be achieved or occur. We undertake no obligation to update publicly any forward-looking statements for any reason after the date of this prospectus to conform these statements to new information, actual results or to changes in our expectations, except as required by law.

You should read this prospectus and the documents that we file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC with the understanding that our actual future results, levels of activity, performance, and events and circumstances may be materially different from what we expect.

We will not receive any of the proceeds from the sale of securities by the selling stockholders pursuant to this prospectus. We may receive up to approximately $100 in aggregate gross proceeds from the exercise of the Warrants, if the Warrants are exercised for cash (and, as applicable, not a cashless basis), based on the per share exercise price of the Warrants. Any proceeds we receive from the exercise of the Warrants will be used for working capital and general corporate purposes.

Our Common Stock is currently listed on the Nasdaq Global Market under the symbol “INBX.” As of May 30, 2024, there were 14,475,904 shares of Common Stock and no shares of preferred stock outstanding and held by 13 stockholders of record.

We intend to retain all available funds and future earnings, if any, for use in the operation of our business and do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our Common Stock in the foreseeable future. Any future determination to declare and pay dividends will be made at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend on various factors, including applicable laws, our results of operations, our financial condition, our capital requirements, general business conditions, our future prospects, restrictions in our debt agreements and other factors that our board of directors may deem relevant. Investors should not purchase our Common Stock with the expectation of receiving cash dividends.

We were incorporated on January 8, 2024 under the laws of the State of Delaware as a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of the Former Parent. We acquired certain corporate infrastructure and other assets and liabilities described in this prospectus, through a series of restructuring transactions effected by the Former Parent prior to the Distribution. Unless expressly indicated or the context requires otherwise, the terms “Company,” “we,” “us,” and “our” in this prospectus refer to Inhibrx Biosciences, Inc. and its subsidiaries, including as a former business of the Former Parent, to the extent the context requires.

Overview

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with a pipeline of novel biologic therapeutic candidates, developed using our proprietary modular protein engineering platforms.

We leverage our innovative protein engineering technologies and deep understanding of target biology to create therapeutic candidates with attributes and mechanisms superior to current approaches and applicable to a range of challenging, validated targets with high potential.

Our current clinical pipeline of therapeutic candidates includes ozekibart (INBRX-109) and INBRX-106, both of which utilize multivalent formats where the precise valency can be optimized in a target-centric way to mediate what we believe to be the most appropriate agonist function.

__________________

*    Currently being investigated in colorectal and gastric adenocarcinoma, malignant pleural mesothelioma, Ewing sarcoma, chondrosarcoma and synovial sarcoma.

**    Currently being investigated in patients with NSCLC and HNSCC.

Our Leadership Team

We have assembled a team with deep scientific, manufacturing, and clinical experience in discovering and developing protein therapeutics, as well as an accomplished commercial team with the expertise to successfully bring our therapeutic candidates, if approved, to market. Our in-house capabilities span the disciplines of discovery, protein engineering, cell biology, translational research, chemistry, manufacturing and controls, or CMC, clinical development, and commercialization. Members of our team bring experience from multiple organizations including Genentech, Inc., Gilead Sciences, Inc., Merck & Co., Novartis AG, Pfizer Inc., and Roche. Our board of directors is comprised of individuals with proven business and scientific accomplishments and significant operating knowledge of our company.

Our Strategy

Our mission is to discover and develop effective biologic treatments for people with life-threatening conditions and to evolve the Company into a commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company with a differentiated and sustainable product portfolio by focusing on the following:

Each of our clinical programs has key data or milestone events expected in 2024/2025. Since entering the clinic, we have made great strides in each trial.

We continue to focus our internal clinical development where we believe we can create effective and flexible solutions to address the challenges of validated targets in areas with a high unmet medical need. Our modular protein engineering platforms enable us to efficiently identify optional therapeutic formats customized to the target biology.

We have successfully built an innovative culture that encourages scientific risk-taking within the bounds of our data-driven philosophy. This enables our research and development team to discover numerous promising preclinical candidates cost effectively, from which we select what we believe are highly differentiated programs for clinical development.

We have a disciplined strategy to maximize the potential of our therapeutic pipeline in order to bring the greatest value to our stockholders and the most significant impact to patients. We are continuously looking to streamline operations to increase efficiency and to ensure maximum value is achieved with the capital we raise. Additionally, we will enter into strategic partnerships and transactions in instances where we believe partnering will accelerate our development timelines and/or maximize the commercial potential of any approved therapeutic candidate.

Ozekibart was originally known as INBRX-109, but was granted the “ozekibart” generic name in 2023 by both International Nonproprietary Names, or INN, and United States Adopted Names, or USAN. Ozekibart (INBRX-109) is a precisely engineered tetravalent therapeutic candidate targeting death-receptor 5, or DR5, a TNFRSF member, also known as tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand, or TRAIL, receptor 2. DR5 activation induces cancer-specific programmed cell death. The valency of ozekibart (INBRX-109) was selected to maximize the therapeutic index. In our Phase 1 clinical trial, we observed signs of single agent activity in serious, life-threatening medical conditions with limited treatment options. We observed signs of activity with ozekibart (INBRX-109) in combination with standard chemotherapies, the trial of which is still ongoing. In June 2021, based on the initial Phase 1 data results observed, we initiated a Phase 2 trial for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic conventional chondrosarcoma. Data from the Phase 2 trial in unresectable or metastatic conventional chondrosarcoma is expected during the first half of 2025.

Apoptosis is a critical process for maintaining healthy tissue homeostasis, but this process is frequently altered in cancer patients leading to the accumulation of malignant cells. Apoptotic signaling pathways are tightly regulated by the balance of pro- and anti-apoptotic factors, and their therapeutic modulation has the potential to be exploited for the treatment of cancer. Targeting the anti-apoptotic proteins has been a clinically successful strategy. For example, Venetoclax, an inhibitor of B-cell lymphoma 2, or Bcl-2, was approved by the FDA for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia in 2016.

Alternatively, we believe therapeutically targeting pro-apoptotic proteins such as DR5 is a promising oncology treatment strategy. DR5 signaling is induced by clustering of multiple receptors, which initiates an apoptotic signaling pathway resulting in cell death. The strength of apoptotic signaling is proportional to the degree of DR5 clustering. Importantly, although DR5 is expressed throughout the body, cancer cells have been shown to be more sensitive to DR5 signaling compared to healthy cells of normal tissues.

The promise of inducing cancer-specific cell death has led to extensive efforts by pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to therapeutically exploit the DR5 pathway for the treatment of cancer. These initial efforts centered around developing recombinant versions of the DR5 ligand, TRAIL, and agonistic bivalent DR5 antibodies. Despite demonstrated clinical safety as single agents and in combination with chemotherapies, these first generation DR5 agonists failed to meet clinical efficacy endpoints. We believe these failures were caused by insufficient clustering of DR5, which is necessary for activation of this pathway.

We are currently investigating ozekibart (INBRX-109) in chondrosarcoma, Ewing sarcoma, colorectal cancer, and certain other solid tumor types. These are some of the most aggressive diseases, some of which are also orphan oncology indications that have shown signs of activity in preclinical studies. These indications and many of these cancer subtypes do not respond well to currently approved therapies and represent a significant unmet need.

Ozekibart (INBRX-109) is a tetravalent agonist of DR5 that we designed with our proprietary single domain antibody, or sdAb, platform to drive cancer-selective programmed cell death and to maximize potency while minimizing on-target liver toxicity arising from hepatocyte apoptosis. We believe ozekibart (INBRX-109) has the potential to overcome the limitations of previous DR5 agonists. As shown in the diagram below, ozekibart (INBRX-109) is comprised of four DR5 targeted sdAbs fused to an Fc region that has been modified to prevent Fc receptor interactions. In preclinical studies, we have observed that ozekibart (INBRX-109) has the ability to potently agonize DR5 through efficient receptor clustering, causing cancer cell death. Based upon experience with earlier generation DR5 agonists, hepatocytes appear to be a non-cancerous cell type particularly sensitive to DR5 agonism. We have engineered ozekibart (INBRX-109) with our proprietary sdAb modifications to reduce recognition by pre-existing anti-drug antibodies in humans, which can lessen the potential for hyper-clustering and thereby reduce potential hepatotoxicity.

Primary objectives of the Phase 1 trial are safety, tolerability, and determination of the maximum tolerated dose, or MTD, and recommended Phase 2 dose. Secondary objectives are serum exposure and immunogenicity, as measured by frequency of anti-drug antibodies. Exploratory objectives include clinical anti-tumor efficacy, based on response rate, duration of response, disease control rate, progression-free survival and overall survival, as well as evaluation of potential predictive diagnostic and pharmacodynamic biomarkers.

We initiated a Phase 1 clinical trial in the United States in November 2018. This Phase 1 clinical trial is designed as an open-label, three-part trial in patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors.

Part 1 of the trial utilized a traditional 3+3 dose escalation design escalating ozekibart (INBRX-109) as a single agent from 0.3 mg/kg to 30 mg/kg. Twenty patients were enrolled in this portion of the trial, which was completed in August 2019. Ozekibart (INBRX-109) was observed to be well-tolerated without significant toxicities observed at doses up to and including the maximum administered dose of 30 mg/kg. No MTD was reached.

In September 2019, we commenced single agent dose expansion cohorts, Part 2 is now complete and enrolled 116 patients in single agent dose cohorts in the following tumor types: colorectal and gastric adenocarcinomas, malignant pleural mesothelioma, chondrosarcoma, synovial sarcoma, and solid tumors with BMI>30.

In February 2021, we initiated chemotherapy combination cohorts in Part 3 of this trial and will enroll up to 100 patients. We are investigating ozekibart (INBRX-109) in Ewing sarcoma, colorectal cancer cohorts, and SDH-deficient solid tumors, or GIST.

We announced preliminary efficacy and safety data from the Phase 1 trial of ozekibart (INBRX-109) in combination with Irinotecan, or IRI, and Temozolomide, or TMZ, for the treatment of advanced or metastatic, unresectable Ewing sarcoma. Among the 13 patients evaluable as of the data cut of September 8, 2023, the observed disease control rate was 76.9%, or 10 out of 13 patients as measured by RECISTv1.1, with seven patients achieving partial responses (53.8%) and three patients achieving stable disease (23.1%). Overall, ozekibart (INBRX-109) in combination with IRI/TMZ was well-tolerated from a safety perspective. We have expanded recruitment of this cohort as a result of these preliminary findings.

Chondrosarcoma is a rare malignant bone tumor composed of cartilage matrix-producing cells. It is reported to be the second most common primary bone sarcoma with an incidence of 1 in 200,000 per year globally. The incidence in the United States is reported to be about 1,400 cases per year. There is currently no approved systemic treatment for patients with unresectable or metastatic disease. The placebo arm of a placebo-controlled trial, which tested the hedgehog pathway inhibitor IPI-926 in this indication had a progression free survival of approximately three months. In this trial, IPI-926 did not result in any partial responses and only a small subset of patients had minor reductions in their tumor size.

In January 2021, the FDA granted Fast Track designation to ozekibart (INBRX-109) for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic conventional chondrosarcoma. In November 2021, the FDA granted orphan drug designation for ozekibart (INBRX-109) for the treatment of conventional chondrosarcoma. In August 2022, the EMA granted orphan drug designation for ozekibart (INBRX-109) for the treatment of conventional chondrosarcoma.

In November 2022, we announced efficacy and safety data from the ongoing Phase 1 ozekibart (INBRX-109) expansion cohorts for the treatment of chondrosarcoma. Among the 33 patients evaluable as of November 8, 2022, the observed disease control rate was 87.9%, or 29 out of 33 patients as measured by RECISTv1.1, with two patients achieving partial responses (6.1%) and 27 patients achieving stable disease (81.8%). Disease control was observed in patients with and without IDH1/IDH2 mutations. Of those achieving stable disease, 55.6% had decreases from baseline in tumor size. Clinical benefit was durable, 14 of 33 patients (42.4%) who achieved disease control had a clinical benefit lasting greater than 6 months, and the longest duration of stable disease observed was 20 months. At that time, the median progression-free survival, or PFS, was 7.6 months, and five patients remained on study.

Of the 210 patients studied and evaluable, the treatment-related serious adverse events observed were (i) abnormal laboratory findings of increased alanine aminotransferase (6 or 2.9%), increased aspartate aminotransferase (6 or 2.9%), increased hepatic enzyme (1 or 0.5%), increased liver function test (1 or 0.5%) and decreased platelet count (1 or 0.5%), (ii) gastrointestinal disorders, which consisted of diarrhea (3 or 1.4%), enterocolitis, an inflammation of the small intestine and colon (1 or 0.5%), nausea (1 or 0.5%) and vomiting (1 or 0.5%), (iii) blood and lymphatic

system disorders, which consisted of anemia (3 or 1.4%), febrile neutropenia, a condition where the body has a reduced number of a certain type of white blood cells in conjunction with a fever (2 or 1%) and thrombocytopenia, a condition where the number of platelets in the blood is abnormally low (1 or 0.5%), (iv) hepatobiliary (liver, bile duct or gallbladder) disorders which consisted of acute hepatic failure (2 or 1%), hepatic failure (1 or 0.5%), hyperbilirubinemia, also known as jaundice (1 or 0.5%), (v) general disorders and administration site conditions, which consisted of asthenia, or physical weakness or general lack of energy (1 or 0.5%) and influenza-like illness (1 or 0.5%), (vi) infections, which consisted of neutropenic sepsis, a significant inflammatory response to a presumed infection in a person with or without fever (1 or 0.5%) and sepsis, an overreactive and extreme inflammatory response to infection (1 or 0.5%), (vii) metabolism and nutrition disorders, which consisted of dehydration (1 or 0.5%), failure to thrive (1 or 0.5%) and hyponatraemia, a condition where the sodium levels in blood are lower than normal (1 or 0.5%), (viii) tachycardia (1 or 0.5%), and (ix) posterior reversible encephalophathy syndrome, a condition marked by headaches, vision problems, mental changes, seizures, and swelling in the brain (1 or 0.5%).

In June 2021, we initiated a Phase 2 trial in this patient population, which will enroll approximately 200 patients in total at 50 different sites worldwide, with progression free survival, or mPFS, as the primary endpoint.

Primary objectives of the ongoing Phase 2 trial are to evaluate the efficacy of ozekibart (INBRX-109) as measured by mPFS, assessed by central real-time independent radiology review. Secondary objectives are to evaluate the overall survival, mPFS by investigator assessment, quality of life, objective response rate, duration of response, disease control rate, safety and tolerability, pharmacokinetics and anti-drug antibodies to ozekibart (INBRX-109).

In early 2023, the Phase 2 trial was placed on partial clinical hold by the FDA, and we paused patient enrollment in the trial, following the occurrence of a fatal (grade 5) serious adverse event of hepatotoxicity (or hepatic failure) event triggering the pre-defined stopping rules built into the protocol. The additional insight gained on patients at risk of significant hepatotoxicity led us to believe that elderly patients with fatty liver disease are the at-risk population. We implemented the Hepatic Steatosis Index, or HSI, into the protocol and excluded elderly patients with an HSI score of 36 or higher, which has helped to address the patients at risk of significant hepatotoxicity. The FDA lifted the hold in April 2023 after we amended the trial protocol.

Of 89 patients studied to date, the serious adverse events related to study drug (ozekibart (INBRX-109) or placebo) were (i) abnormal laboratory findings of increased alanine aminotransferase (1 or 1.1%) and increased aspartate aminotransferase (1 or 1.1%), (ii) hepatobiliary disorders, which consisted of hyperbilirubinemia (1 or 1.1%) and hepatic failure (1 or 1.1%), which led to our partial clinical hold, as described above, (iii) infections which consisted of infectious enterocolitis (1 or 1.1%), (iv) muscular weakness (1 or 1.1%), and (v) renal and urinary disorders, which consisted of hemorrhagic Cystitis, a condition in which the bladder becomes inflamed and starts to bleed (1 or 1.1%).

The Phase 2 trial is overseen by an independent group of qualified experts, known as a data safety monitoring board, or DSMB, committee. This group provides authorization for whether a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access that only the group maintains to available data from the trial. Suspension or termination of development occurs if it is determined that the participants or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. In April 2024, the DSMB committee reviewed the interim analyses for the Phase 2 trial and made the recommendation that we continue forward with the current trial. We expect to announce data from this trial during the first half of 2025.

INBRX-106 is a hexavalent OX40 agonist, currently being investigated as a single agent and in combination with Keytruda® (pembrolizumab), a PD-1 blocking checkpoint inhibitor, in patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors. KEYTRUDA® is a registered trademark of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. We continue to enroll and/or have active patients in Part 2, single agent dose expansion, and Part 4, combination expansion cohorts. We expect to announce initial data from these cohorts during the second half of 2025.

A notable recent success in cancer treatment is the approval of checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapies as therapeutic agents. Immune checkpoints are key mechanisms that fine-tune and control the body’s immune response. In the cancer setting, tumors have developed strategies for hijacking these checkpoints, preventing an immune response to the cancer and allowing the tumor cells to proliferate unchecked. Checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapies were developed to overcome this phenomenon by relieving immune cell inhibition, resulting in a potentially long-lasting amplification of the anti-tumor immune response. Therapies against checkpoint proteins, such as PD-1 and PD-L1, produced impressive results in clinical development, resulting in marketing approvals in a number of malignancies.

Background on OX40

OX40, a member of the TNFRSF, is predominately expressed and is a key co-stimulatory receptor on activated T-cells. Signaling through OX40 provides co-stimulation that promotes T-cell expansion, enhanced effector function and memory cell formation, and prevents activation-induced cell death. The natural mechanism of OX40 activation is via the interaction with its trimeric ligand, OX40L, which serves to effectively cluster multiple OX40 molecules and facilitate downstream signaling leading to nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells, or NFkB, activation. Based on the capacity for OX40 signaling to enhance anti-tumor immunity in preclinical studies, there have been many efforts to therapeutically exploit this pathway for cancer immunotherapy. Most previously developed agents were bivalent OX40 agonists, the configuration of which we believe to be poorly suited for efficient receptor clustering, evidenced by the lack of clinical responses observed for such molecules.

Unmet Medical Need

Despite unprecedented clinical response rates, the majority of patients fail to respond to therapies targeting PD-1 and PD-L1. We believe this is in part because T-cells require co-stimulation for full functionality. Thus, checkpoint inhibition alone is likely insufficient to fully enable the immune system to attack a tumor, and we believe further benefit could be derived by the addition of immune co-stimulatory agents.

Our Solution

INBRX-106 is a precisely engineered hexavalent sdAb-based therapeutic candidate targeting OX40, designed to be an optimized agonist of this co-stimulatory receptor. As shown in the diagram below, INBRX-106 is composed of six OX40 targeting sdAbs and a functional Fc domain.

As a hexavalent therapeutic candidate, INBRX-106 is designed to bind six OX40 molecules on the cell surface to mediate efficient receptor clustering and downstream signaling. In preclinical studies, we observed that INBRX-106 elicited superior OX40 agonism when compared to the bivalent antibodies, 1A7 (analog of MOXR-0916) or 1D10 using an OX40 expressing NFkB reporter cell line, wherein clustering of OX40 receptor mediated signaling culminated in luciferase expression. We also observed that INBRX-106 can mediate T-cell co-stimulation and reduce the suppressive activity of regulatory T-cells. Additionally, INBRX-106 is able to exploit IgG-mediated effector function via the Fc domain.

Clinical Data

We initiated a Phase 1/2 clinical trial in December 2019 for INBRX-106. This trial is designed as an open-label, four-part trial in patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors. Primary objectives of the trial are safety and tolerability, and the determination of the MTD and recommended Phase 2 dose of INBRX-106 as a single agent and in combination with Keytruda. Secondary objectives are serum exposure, immunogenicity, as measured by the frequency of anti-drug antibodies, and clinical anti-tumor efficacy per RECIST (version 1.1) and immune RECIST based on response rate, duration of response, disease control rate, progression-free survival and overall survival. Exploratory objectives will include evaluation of potential predictive diagnostic and pharmacodynamic biomarkers.

Part 1 of the trial utilized a traditional 3+3 algorithm for single agent dose escalation from 0.0003 mg/kg to 3 mg/kg in twenty patients. INBRX-106 was observed to be generally well tolerated in humans. The most common adverse events, or AEs, reported for INBRX-106 were Grade 1 and 2 and notably, cutaneous toxicities, which are common immune-related AEs associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. These AEs, which were mostly mild or moderate non-serious adverse events and likely immune-related toxicities were in line with the mechanism of action of this candidate therapeutic. The maximum administered dose was 3 mg/kg and the MTD level was not reached.

Part 2 of the trial, single agent dose expansion, administered INBRX-106 in different dosing schedules to patients with tumor types responsive to checkpoint inhibitors. Part 2 treatment cohorts of this trial were in the following tumor types: NSCLC, melanoma, HNSCC, gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, renal cell carcinoma, and urothelial (transitional) cell carcinoma.

We expanded the enrollment for Part 2 in order to increase the dataset in the single agent cohorts and to enroll additional NSCLC patients. We expect to announce additional data from Part 2 in 2025.

In Parts 3 and 4 of this trial, INBRX-106 is being evaluated in combination with Keytruda. In the all-comer Part 3 of the trial, INBRX-106 was escalated in combination with Keytruda and enrolled patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors. It was observed to be well tolerated, with predominantly mild or moderate non-serious immune-related toxicities noted. We observed durable responses across multiple tumor types.

In Part 4, INBRX-106 combination expansion cohorts, we continue to enroll patients who are positive for PD-L1 expression, as determined by immunohistochemistry, and possess adequate hematologic and organ function, to qualify for enrollment. Most of these patients will be checkpoint refractory with NSCLC (both TPS>1% and >50%), and a basket of other indications as well as uveal melanoma. To date, of the 166 patients studied and evaluable in our Phase 1/2 clinical trial for INBRX-106, the treatment-related serious adverse events observed were (i) general

disorders and administration site conditions, which consisted of pyrexia, or fever (3 or 1.8%) and influenza-like illness (1 or 0.6%), (ii) metabolism and nutrition disorders, which consisted of failure to thrive (1 or 0.6%), hyponatraemia, a condition when the sodium levels in blood are lower than normal (1 or 0.6%), and hypercalcemia, a condition when the sodium levels in blood are higher than normal (1 or 0.6%), (iii) gastrointestinal disorders, which consisted of diarrhea (2 or 1.2%) and vomiting (1 or 0.6%), (iv) blood and lymphatic system disorders, which consisted of anemia (1 or 0.6%) and pancytopenia, a condition in which there is lower-than-normal number of red and white blood cells and platelets in the blood (1 or 0.6%), (v) cardiac disorders, which consisted of acute myocardial infarction (1 or 0.6%) and myocarditis (1 or 0.6%), (vi) cytokine release syndrome (2 or 1.2%), (vii) infusion-related reactions (2 or 1.2%), (viii) primary adrenal insufficiency (1 or 0.6%), (ix) increased blood bilirubin (1 or 0.6%), (x) myositis, or inflamed muscles (1 or 0.6%), (xi) toxic encephalopathy, or brain dysfunction caused by toxic exposure (1 or 0.6%), and (xii) acute kidney injury (1 or 0.6%).

Notably, though most patients with related treatment emergent adverse events had events that were mild or moderate (Grade 1 or 2) in severity. The most common adverse events observed in this study related to INBRX-106 were infusion-related reaction, fatigue, rash, nausea, pruritus, and diarrhea.

We continue to enroll patients with NSCLC and HNSCC in Part 4, both in combination with Keytruda. The initial data observed from 24 NSCLC patients who all had previous checkpoint inhibitor exposure was tumor reduction or stabilization of target lesions in more than half the patients. Of those patients, one complete response and four partial responses were observed. The initial data observed from 14 HNSCC patients, seven of which were checkpoint failures and seven of which were checkpoint naive, was tumor reduction of target lesions in half the patients. Of those patients, two complete responses and five partial responses were observed. These cohorts have been expanded to recruit additional patients, and in addition, a new cohort has been initiated in NSCLC to evaluate the safety of chemotherapy when used in conjunction with the INBRX-106 and Keytruda combination. All of these cohorts are currently recruiting, and we expect to have a more mature dataset in the second half of 2025 and plan to provide an update at that time.

As of June 2024, a seamless Phase 2/3 clinical trial has been initiated for INBRX-106 in combination with Keytruda as a first-line treatment for patients with local advanced recurrent or metastatic head HNSCC. This trial will recruit patients who have not received prior checkpoint inhibitors and whose tumors express a PDL-1 combined positive score, or CPS, equal to or greater than 20. We plan to enroll approximately 60 patients in the Phase 2 portion with a primary endpoint of overall response rate, or ORR, supported by secondary endpoints of duration of response, progression-free survival, or PFS, and safety. This data will ungate the phase 3 portion, where approximately 350 patients will be randomized to INBRX-106 or placebo in combination with Keytruda. The primary endpoint for the phase 3 portion of the study will be PFS and overall survival.

License Agreements

We have entered into various license agreements. The license agreements discussed below pertain to intellectual property that we own and license to the parties identified below. We retain ownership of the intellectual property subject to the license agreements.

On July 1, 2013, we entered into a license agreement with Celgene, a Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, or Celgene, as amended on November 23, 2018, or the Celgene Agreement, pursuant to which we granted Celgene an exclusive, global license for the development, manufacture and commercialization of our proprietary CD47 binding domain, or the Celgene Licensed Intellectual Property. Per the terms of the Celgene Agreement, Celgene is operationally and financially responsible for the development, manufacturing and commercialization activities of Celgene Licensed Intellectual Property and any additional related antibodies covered by the Celgene Agreement.

As payment for the license granted in the Celgene Agreement, we may be eligible to receive development and regulatory milestones of up to an aggregate of $934.1 million, assuming the achievement of all potential milestones in the Celgene Agreement, as well as percentage tiered royalties based on future worldwide sales, with rates ranging from the high single-digits to the low teens, subject to potential reduction when and if comparable third-party products attain certain levels of competitive market share (on a country-by-country basis) and, subject to certain

limitations, payments to third parties for third-party intellectual property rights. Celgene’s royalty obligations expire (on a country-by-country basis) upon the later of (i) the expiration of the last valid patent claim for the applicable Celgene Licensed Intellectual Property or related product in a country, and (ii) 12 years following that date of the first commercial sale of the applicable Celgene Licensed Intellectual Property or related product in a country. We are obligated to pay 2% of future amounts received under the Celgene Agreement to advisors who assisted us with the negotiations and other matters in connection with the Celgene Agreement.

The Celgene Agreement contains representations and warranties, insurance, indemnification and confidentiality provisions customary for similar agreements and arrangements. In addition, Celgene has the sole right, but not the obligation, to enforce the intellectual property included in the Celgene Agreement.

The term of the Celgene Agreement commenced on July 1, 2013 and expires on a licensed product-by-licensed product and country-by-country basis on the date of expiration of Celgene’s applicable royalty obligations. As of May 30, 2024 and based on our current plans, the last to expire issued patent licensed under the Celgene Agreement is projected to expire in August 2033, absent any extension of term. The Celgene Agreement may be terminated by (i) either party for the uncured material breach of the other party, (ii) either party for bankruptcy or other insolvency proceedings of the other party, (iii) Celgene at any time upon 30 days’ written notice to us, and (iv) us, upon Celgene’s, or any of its affiliates’, legal challenge to the validity or enforceability of a licensed patent.

On December 20, 2018, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with bluebird bio, Inc., or bluebird, pursuant to which we granted to bluebird an exclusive license to use our proprietary sdAb platform to research, develop and commercialize chimeric antigen receptor, or CAR, T-cell therapies. In November 2021, bluebird assigned the agreement, which we refer to as the 2018 2seventy Agreement, to its affiliate, 2seventy bio, Inc., or 2seventy, in connection with an internal restructuring and subsequent spin-out of 2seventy. Under the terms of the 2018 2seventy Agreement, we provided 2seventy the exclusive worldwide rights to develop, manufacture and commercialize certain cell therapy products containing sdAbs directed to various cancer targets. As payment for the license granted in the 2018 2seventy Agreement, we received a non-refundable upfront payment of $7.0 million in January 2019. We are also entitled to receive certain developmental milestone payments of up to an aggregate of $51.5 million per therapeutic, as well as percentage tiered royalties on future product sales with rates in the mid-single-digits. In August 2021, we received a $2.0 million milestone payment under this agreement.

The 2018 2seventy Agreement contains representations and warranties, indemnification and confidentiality provisions customary for similar agreements and arrangements. The term of the 2018 2seventy Agreement commenced on December 20, 2018, and expires on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis upon the full expiration of 2seventy’s milestone- and royalty-based payment obligations under the 2018 2seventy Agreement. The royalty obligations under the 2018 2seventy Agreement expire on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis on the later of (i) the expiration of the last valid patent claim for the applicable product in the relevant jurisdiction; (ii) the date on which any applicable regulatory, pediatric, orphan drug or data exclusivity, which provides 2seventy with the exclusive right to market the applicable product in the relevant jurisdiction, expires; and (iii) 12 years following that date of the first commercial sale of the applicable product in a country. As of May 30, 2024 and based on current plans, the last to expire issued patent (assuming the issuance of one or more patents based on our pending patent applications) licensed under the 2018 2seventy Agreement is projected to expire in May 2040, absent any extension of term. The 2018 2seventy Agreement may be terminated by (i) either party for the uncured material breach of the other party, (ii) either party for bankruptcy or other insolvency proceedings of the other party, and (iii) 2seventy at any time upon 30 days’ written notice to us.

On June 9, 2020, we entered into an option and license agreement with bluebird, pursuant to which we granted to bluebird exclusive worldwide rights to develop binders and cell therapy products containing sdAbs directed to specified targets, consisting of two initial programs and up to an additional 8 programs. We retain all rights to the specific sdAbs outside of the cell therapy field. This agreement, which we refer to as the 2020 2seventy Agreement, was also assigned to 2seventy in November 2021 in connection with bluebird’s internal restructuring and subsequent

spin-out of 2seventy. In June 2020, we received a non-refundable upfront option fee of $0.2 million in connection with each of the two initial programs, or $0.4 million in aggregate, and we are entitled to an upfront option fee for each additional program. In June 2022, 2seventy selected a third program and paid a non-refundable upfront option fee of $0.2 million in exchange for a development license. Under each of the three programs, we also granted an option in which 2seventy may acquire an exclusive license with respect to all binders and cell therapy products developed under the 2020 2seventy Agreement, which entitles us to additional fees upon exercise of the option. 2seventy may exercise its option on a program-by-program basis during the option term. Additionally, 2seventy may extend the option term for up to six months in the event that there are additional bona fide development activities that 2seventy desires to undertake. We are also entitled to receive certain developmental milestone payments of up to an aggregate of $51.5 million per therapeutic, as well as percentage tiered royalties on future product sales with rates in the mid-single digits.

The 2020 2seventy Agreement contains representations and warranties, indemnification and confidentiality provisions customary for similar agreements and arrangements. The term of the 2020 2seventy Agreement commenced on June 9, 2020, and expires on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis upon the full expiration of 2seventy’s milestone- and royalty-based payment obligations under the 2020 2seventy Agreement. The royalty obligations under the 2020 2seventy Agreement expire on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis on the later of (i) the expiration of the last valid patent claim for the applicable product in the relevant country; (ii) the date on which any applicable regulatory, pediatric, orphan drug or data exclusivity, which provides 2seventy with the exclusive right to market the applicable product in the relevant country, expires; and (iii) 12 years following that date of the first commercial sale of the applicable product in such country. As of May 30, 2024, no applicable patent applications have been filed. The 2020 2seventy Agreement may be terminated by (i) either party for the uncured material breach of the other party, (ii) either party for bankruptcy or other insolvency proceedings of the other party, and (iii) 2seventy at any time upon prior written notice within a specified number of days before the termination.

In May 2021, pursuant to the option extension terms in the 2020 2seventy Agreement, bluebird requested to extend the option term for one of the initial programs by an additional six months in exchange for an option extension fee of $0.1 million. In August 2021, pursuant to the option exercise terms in the agreement, bluebird exercised its option to exclusively license one of the initial programs in exchange for an option exercise fee of $2.1 million, the payment of which was received in October 2021. In May 2023, 2seventy declined to exercise its option for one of the two initial programs.

We strive to protect the proprietary technology and information commercially or strategically important to our business. We seek to obtain and maintain, patent rights intended to cover the technologies incorporated into, or used to produce, our therapeutic candidates, the compositions of matter of our therapeutic candidates and their methods of use and manufacture, as well as other inventions that are important to our business. We also seek to obtain strategic or commercially valuable patent rights in the United States and other jurisdictions.

To cover our proprietary technologies and our current pipeline of proprietary products and related methods, such as methods of use, we have filed patent applications representing 39 patent families. As of May 30, 2024, our patent estate included 20 issued United States patents, 28 United States pending non-provisional patent applications, 5 United States pending provisional patent applications, 9 pending PCT applications, 180 issued foreign patents and 343 foreign patent applications currently pending in various foreign jurisdictions.

Specifically, we own more than seven patent families with claims directed to various sdAb and/or multivalent therapeutic antibodies including, for example, our INBRX-106 and ozekibart (INBRX-109) therapeutic candidates, and related methods of using the same to treat diseases, e.g., cancer, inflammatory disease, or infectious disease. Patent applications in these families are pending in multiple jurisdictions, including, for example, the United States, Australia, European Patent Organization, Canada, China, Japan, Korea, and Russia; as well as PCT applications and several U.S. provisional applications. Patents in these patent families, if granted, are expected to expire between 2036 and 2043, depending upon their respective filing dates and absent any patent term adjustments or extensions.

We also own two patent families relating to the Celgene Licensed Intellectual Property that are licensed to Celgene. Two United States and 90 foreign patents (Australia, Chile, Colombia, China, Europe (validated in up to 39 countries), Eurasia (validated in Russia), Hong Kong, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Malaysia, Macao, New Zealand, Peru, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, Ukraine, and Vietnam) have been granted in these families and include claims directed to anti-CD47 monoclonal antibodies and/or methods of using the same to treat cancer. These patents are expected to expire in 2033, absent any patent term extension. Patent applications in these families are pending in multiple jurisdictions, including, for example, the United States, Australia, European Patent Organization, Canada, China, Eurasia, Japan, and South Korea. Additional patents in these patent families, if granted, are expected to expire in 2033, depending upon their respective filing dates and absent any patent term adjustments or extensions.

The following patents (including expected 20-year expiration date) relate to our single domain antibody technologies.

The following patents (including expected 20-year expiration dates) relate to our multivalent therapeutic antibody technologies.

The following patents (including expected 20-year expiration dates) relate to our CD47 antibody technologies.

We continually assess and refine our intellectual property strategy as we develop new technologies and therapeutic candidates. As our business evolves, we may, among other activities, file additional patent applications in pursuit of our intellectual property strategy, to adapt to competition or to seize potential opportunities.

The term of individual patents depends upon the laws of the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries in which we file, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest date of filing of a non-provisional patent application. However, the term of United States patents may be extended for delays incurred due to compliance with the FDA requirements or by delays encountered during prosecution that are caused by the USPTO. For example, the Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent term extension for FDA-approved drugs of up to five years beyond the expiration of the patent. The length of the patent term extension is related to the length of time the drug is under regulatory review. Patent extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, and only one patent applicable to an approved drug may be extended. Similar provisions are available in Europe and other jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. In the future, if and when our therapeutic candidates receive FDA approval, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on patents covering those therapeutic candidates. We intend to seek patent term extensions in any jurisdiction where these are available and where we also have a patent that may be eligible; however, there is no guarantee that the

applicable authorities, including the USPTO and FDA, will agree with our assessment of whether such extensions should be granted, and even if granted, the length of such extensions.

We also rely on trade secrets to protect aspects of our technology and business not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection. We seek to protect this intellectual property, in part, by requiring our employees, consultants, sponsored researchers and other service providers and advisors to execute confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of employment or other relationship with us. In general, these agreements provide that confidential information concerning our business or financial affairs developed or made known to the individual during the course of the individual’s relationship with us is to be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties except in specific circumstances. In the case of employees, the agreements further provide that inventions and discoveries conceived or reduced to practice by the individual that are related to our business, or actual, or demonstrably anticipated, research or development, or made during normal working hours, on our premises or using our equipment, supplies, or proprietary information, are our exclusive property. In many cases our agreements with consultants, sponsored researchers and other service providers and advisors require them to assign, or grant us licenses to, inventions resulting from the work or services they render under such agreements or grant us an option to negotiate a license to use such inventions.

Further, we expect to rely on data exclusivity, market exclusivity, patent term adjustment and patent term extensions when available.

We seek trademark protection in the United States and in certain other jurisdictions where available and when we deem appropriate. We currently have a registration for “Inhibrx” in the United States and have filed trademark applications for “Inhibrx Biosciences” in the United States. We intend to file applications for trademark registrations in connection with our therapeutic candidates in various jurisdictions, including the United States.

The biopharmaceutical industry is characterized by rapid evolution of technologies, fierce competition and strong defense of intellectual property. While we believe that our platforms, technology, knowledge, experience, and scientific resources provide us with competitive advantages, we face competition from major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies and public and private research institutions, among others.

Any therapeutic candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with currently approved therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. Key product features that would affect our ability to effectively compete with other therapeutics include the efficacy, safety and convenience of our therapeutics, the ease of use and effectiveness of any complementary diagnostics and/or companion diagnostics, and price and levels of reimbursement. Our primary competitors fall into the following groups:

Our competitors also include other large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies who may be developing therapeutic candidates with mechanisms similar to or targeting the same indications as our therapeutic candidates.

The availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors will also significantly affect the pricing and competitiveness of our therapeutic candidates. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other marketing approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market.

Many of the companies against which we may compete have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, nonclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining marketing approvals and marketing approved products than we do. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These early stage and more established 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.

Government Regulation

Governmental authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, labeling, packaging, promotion, storage, advertising, distribution, marketing and export and import of products such as those we are developing. Our therapeutic candidates must be approved by the FDA through the BLA process before they may be legally marketed in the United States and will be subject to similar requirements in other countries prior to marketing in those countries. The process of obtaining marketing approvals in the U.S. and in foreign countries and jurisdictions, and the subsequent compliance with applicable federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

In the United States, the FDA regulates biopharmaceutical products under the FDCA and the Public Health Services Act, or PHSA, and implementing regulations. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development or approval process, or after approval, may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions brought by the FDA and the Department of Justice, or DOJ, or other governmental entities, any of which could have a material adverse effect on us. These sanctions could include:

The process required by the FDA before a therapeutic biologic may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

Once a biopharmaceutical candidate is identified for development, it enters the preclinical or nonclinical testing stage. Nonclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as potential animal studies. The Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2023, signed into law on December 29, 2022

(P.L. 117-328), amended both the FDCA and the PHSA to specify that nonclinical testing for drugs and biologics, respectively, may, but is not required to, include in vivo animal testing. According to the amended language, a sponsor may fulfill nonclinical testing requirements by completing various in vitro assays (e.g., cell-based assays, organ chips, or microphysiological systems), in silico studies (i.e., computer modeling), other human or non-human biology based tests (e.g., bioprinting), or in vivo animal tests.

An IND sponsor must submit the results of the nonclinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, to the FDA as part of the IND. Additional nonclinical testing continues even after the IND is submitted. In addition to including the results of the nonclinical studies, the IND will also include a study protocol detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated if the first phase lends itself to an efficacy determination. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, places the IND on clinical hold. In this case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before clinical trials can begin. A clinical hold may occur at any time during the life of an IND and may affect one or more specific studies or all studies conducted under the IND.

All clinical trials must be conducted under the supervision of one or more qualified investigators in accordance with GCPs. They must be conducted under protocols detailing the objectives of the trial, dosing procedures, research subject selection and exclusion criteria and the safety and effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol, and any subsequent material amendment to the protocol, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND, and progress reports detailing the status of the clinical trials must be submitted to the FDA annually. Sponsors also must report to the FDA serious and unexpected adverse reactions in a timely manner, such as any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator’s brochure or any findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk in humans exposed to the product or therapeutic candidate. An IRB must review and approve the protocol before a clinical trial commences at that institution and must also approve the information regarding the trial and the consent form that must be provided to each research subject or the subject’s legal representative, monitor the trial until completed and otherwise comply with IRB regulations. There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trial results to public registries.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined.

Phase 1 — The product or therapeutic candidate is initially introduced into healthy human subjects and tested for safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution and elimination. In the case of some therapeutic candidates for severe or life-threatening diseases, such as cancer, especially when the product or therapeutic candidate may be inherently too toxic to ethically administer to healthy volunteers, the initial human testing is often conducted in patients.

Phase 2 — Clinical trials are performed on a limited patient population intended to identify possible adverse events and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product for specific targeted diseases and to determine dosage tolerance and optimal dosage.

Phase 3 — Clinical trials are undertaken to further evaluate dosage, clinical efficacy and safety in an expanded patient population at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. These trials are intended to establish the overall risk-benefit ratio of the product and provide an adequate basis for product labeling.

A pivotal trial is a clinical trial that adequately meets regulatory agency requirements for the evaluation of a product or therapeutic candidate’s efficacy and safety such that it can be used to justify the approval of the product. Generally, pivotal trials are also Phase 3 trials but may be Phase 2 trials if the trial design provides a reliable assessment of clinical benefit, particularly in situations where there is an unmet medical need. Human clinical trials are inherently uncertain and Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 testing may not be successfully completed. The FDA or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time for a variety of reasons, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate

approval of a clinical trial if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the product or therapeutic candidate has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

Congress also recently amended the FDCA, as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2023, to require sponsors of a Phase 3 clinical trial, or other “pivotal study” of a new drug to support marketing authorization, to design and submit a diversity action plan for such clinical trial. The action plan must include the sponsor’s diversity goals for enrollment, as well as a rationale for the goals and a description of how the sponsor will meet them. Sponsors must submit a diversity action plan to the FDA by the time the sponsor submits the relevant clinical trial protocol to the agency for review. The FDA may grant a waiver for some or all of the requirements for a diversity action plan. It is unknown at this time how the diversity action plan may affect Phase 3 trial planning and timing or what specific information FDA will expect in such plans, but if the FDA objects to a sponsor’s diversity action plan or otherwise requires significant changes to be made, it could delay initiation of the relevant clinical trial.

During the development of a new product or therapeutic candidate, sponsors are given opportunities to meet with the FDA at certain points; specifically, prior to the submission of an IND, at the end of Phase 2 and before a BLA 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 and for the FDA to provide advice on the next phase of development. Sponsors typically use the meeting at the end of Phase 2 to discuss their Phase 2 clinical results and present their plans for the pivotal Phase 3 clinical trials that they believe will support the approval of the new therapeutic.

Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as “Phase 4” clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication. In certain instances, FDA may mandate the performance of “Phase 4” clinical trials.

Concurrent with clinical trials, sponsors usually complete additional animal safety studies, develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the product or therapeutic candidate and finalize a process for manufacturing commercial quantities of the product or therapeutic candidate in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product or therapeutic candidate and the manufacturer must develop methods for testing the quality, purity and potency of the product or therapeutic candidate. To help reduce the risk of the introduction of adventitious agents with use of biological products, the PHSA emphasizes the importance of manufacturing control for products whose attributes cannot be precisely defined. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product or therapeutic candidate and, among other criteria, the sponsor must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, potency and purity of the final biological product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the biological product or therapeutic candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

Sponsors of clinical trials of certain FDA-regulated products, including prescription drugs and biologics, are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information on a public registry 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. Competitors may use this publicly available information to gain knowledge regarding the progress of development programs. Although sponsors are also obligated to disclose the results of their clinical trials after completion, disclosure of the results can be delayed in some cases for up to two years after the date of completion of the trial. Failure to timely register a covered clinical study or to submit study results as provided for in the law can give rise to civil monetary penalties and also prevent the non-compliant party from receiving future grant funds from the federal government. The NIH’s Final Rule on ClinicalTrials.gov registration and reporting requirements became effective in 2017, and the government has brought enforcement actions against clinical trial sponsors that fail to comply with such requirements.

Assuming successful completion of the required clinical testing, the results of the nonclinical studies and clinical trials, along with detailed descriptions of the product’s CMC, proposed labeling and other relevant information are submitted to the FDA as part of a BLA requesting approval to market the product.

Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, as amended, or PDUFA, each BLA must be accompanied by a significant user fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. PDUFA also imposes an annual program fee that is assessed on sponsors of approved prescription biological or drug products. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, such as where a waiver is necessary to protect the public health, where the fee would present a significant barrier to innovation, or where the applicant is a small business submitting its first human therapeutic application for review.

Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under PDUFA, for original BLAs, the FDA has ten months from the filing date in which to complete its initial review of a standard application and respond to the applicant, and six months from the filing date for an application with priority review. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates, and the review process is often significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification and the sponsor’s process to respond to such inquiries. This FDA review typically takes twelve months from the date the BLA is submitted to the FDA (for a standard review) and eight months from the date the BLA is submitted (for a “priority review”) because the FDA has approximately two months, or 60 days, after BLA submission to make a “filing” decision.

The FDA conducts a preliminary review of a submitted BLA within 60 days of receipt and informs the sponsor by the 74th day after the FDA’s receipt of the submission whether the application is substantially complete to permit a substantive review. The FDA may refuse to file any BLA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission, and may request additional information. In this event, the BLA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing.

Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the BLA. The FDA reviews the BLA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe, potent, and/or effective for its intended use, whether it has an acceptable purity profile and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP. The FDA may refer applications for novel products or products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee. Typically, 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 these recommendations carefully when making decisions.

The FDA likely will re-analyze the clinical trial data, which could result in extensive discussions between the FDA and the applicant during the review process. The FDA also may require the development of a REMS plan if it determines that a REMS is necessary to ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh its risks and to assure the safe use of the biological product. The REMS plan could include medication guides, physician communication plans, assessment plans and/or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries or other risk minimization tools. The FDA determines the requirement for a REMS, as well as the specific REMS provisions, on a case-by-case basis. If the FDA concludes a REMS plan is needed, the sponsor of the BLA must submit a proposed REMS plan. The FDA will not approve a BLA without a REMS plan, if required.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect the facilities at which the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure that the clinical trials were conducted in compliance with GCP requirements and to assure the integrity of the clinical data submitted to the FDA. To ensure cGMP and GCP compliance by its employees and third-party contractors, an applicant must incur significant expenditure of time, money and effort in the areas of training, record keeping, production and quality control.

The approval process is lengthy and often difficult, and notwithstanding the submission of relevant data and information, the FDA may ultimately decide that the BLA does not satisfy its regulatory criteria for approval and deny approval or may require additional clinical or other data and information. Data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than we interpret the same data. If the agency decides not to approve a BLA, the FDA will issue a complete response letter, or CRL, that describes all of the specific deficiencies in the BLA identified by the FDA. A CRL indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application will not be approved in its present form. The deficiencies identified may be minor, for example, requiring labeling changes, or major, for example, requiring additional clinical trials. Additionally, the CRL may include recommended actions that the applicant might take to place the application in a condition for approval. If a CRL is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application. If and when those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the BLA, the FDA will issue an approval letter to the applicant. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in response to an issued CRL in either two or six months depending on the type of information included. Even with the submission of this additional information, however, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

Even if a product receives marketing approval, the approval may be limited to specific indications and dosages or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling. The FDA may impose restrictions and conditions on product distribution, prescribing, or dispensing in the form of a REMS plan, or otherwise limit the scope of any approval. In addition, the FDA may require post marketing clinical trials, sometimes referred to as “Phase 4” clinical trials, designed to further assess a biological product’s safety and effectiveness, and/or testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products that have been commercialized. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

The FDA issued a final guidance document in July 2014 addressing agency policy in relation to in vitro companion diagnostic tests. The guidance explains that for some drugs and therapeutic biologics, the use of a companion diagnostic test is essential for the safe and effective use of the product, such as when the use of a product is limited to a specific patient subpopulation that can be identified by using the test. According to the guidance, the FDA generally will not approve such a product if the companion diagnostic is not also approved or cleared for the appropriate indication, and accordingly the therapeutic product and the companion diagnostic should be developed and approved or cleared contemporaneously. However, the FDA may decide that it is appropriate to approve such a product without an approved or cleared in vitro companion diagnostic device when the drug or therapeutic biologic is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition for which no satisfactory alternative treatment exists and the FDA determines that the benefits from the use of a product with an unapproved or uncleared in vitro companion diagnostic device are so pronounced as to outweigh the risks from the lack of an approved or cleared in vitro companion diagnostic device. The FDA encourages sponsors considering developing a therapeutic product that requires a companion diagnostic to request a meeting with both relevant device and therapeutic product review divisions to ensure that the product development plan will produce sufficient data to establish the safety and effectiveness of both the therapeutic product and the companion diagnostic. Because the FDA’s policy on companion diagnostics is set forth only in guidance, this policy is subject to change and is not legally binding.

The FDA is authorized to designate certain products for expedited development or review if they are intended to address an unmet medical need in the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. These programs include Fast Track designation, breakthrough therapy designation and priority review designation. In January 2021, ozekibart (INBRX-109) was granted Fast Track designation for patients with unresectable or metastatic conventional chondrosarcoma.

To be eligible for a Fast Track designation, the FDA must determine, based on the request of a sponsor, that a product is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrates the potential to

address an unmet medical need by providing a therapy where none exists or a therapy that may be potentially superior to existing therapy based on efficacy or safety factors. Fast Track designation provides opportunities for more frequent interactions with the FDA review team to expedite development and review of the product. The FDA may also review sections of the BLA for a Fast Track product on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor and the FDA agree on a schedule for the submission of the application sections, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the BLA. In addition, Fast Track designation may be withdrawn by the sponsor or rescinded by the FDA if the designation is no longer supported by data emerging in the clinical trial process.

In addition, Congress created a new regulatory program in 2012 for product and therapeutic candidates designated by the FDA as “breakthrough therapies” upon a request made by the IND sponsors. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a drug or biologic that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug or biologic may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. Drugs or biologics designated as breakthrough therapies may also be eligible for accelerated approval of their respective marketing applications. The FDA must take certain actions with respect to breakthrough therapies, such as holding timely meetings with and providing advice to the product sponsor, intended to expedite the development and review of an application for approval of a breakthrough therapy.

Specific to oncology drug applications, FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence has developed a program called Real-Time Oncology Review, or RTOR. RTOR facilitates earlier submission of topline results (i.e., efficacy and safety results from clinical studies before the study report is completed) and datasets, after database lock, to support an earlier start to the agency’s review of a marketing application review. The intent of RTOR is to provide FDA reviewers earlier access to data, to identify data quality and potential review issues, and to potentially enable early feedback to the applicant, which can allow for a more streamlined and efficient review process for the product’s BLA. Applicants can apply for review under RTOR when the database for a pivotal trial has been locked and the oncology product is eligible under FDA’s criteria for the program. Eligibility requires (a) clinical evidence indicating that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement on one or more clinically relevant endpoints over available therapies; (b) the use of straightforward study designs and easily interpreted clinical trial endpoints (e.g., overall survival, response rates); and (c) that no aspect of the BLA is likely to require a longer review time (e.g., requirement for new REMS or input from an advisory committee). In November 2023, the agency finalized guidance for industry on RTOR.

Finally, the FDA may designate a product for priority review if it is a drug or biologic that treats a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. The FDA determines at the time that the marketing application is submitted, on a case-by-case basis, whether the proposed drug represents a significant improvement in treatment, prevention or diagnosis of disease when compared with other available therapies. Significant improvement may be illustrated by evidence of increased effectiveness in the treatment of a condition, elimination or substantial reduction of a treatment-limiting drug reaction, documented enhancement of patient compliance that may lead to improvement in serious outcomes, or evidence of safety and effectiveness in a new subpopulation. A priority review designation is intended to direct overall attention and resources to the evaluation of such applications, and to shorten the FDA’s goal for taking action on a marketing application from ten months to six months for an original BLA from the date of filing.

Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. Furthermore, Fast Track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, RTOR and priority review do not change the standards for approval and may not ultimately expedite the development or approval process.

In addition, products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may receive accelerated approval from the FDA and may be approved on the basis of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials establishing that the drug product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA may also grant

accelerated approval for such a drug or biologic when the product has an effect on an intermediate clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality, or IMM, and that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on IMM 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 post-marketing clinical trials to verify and describe the predicted effect on IMM or other clinical endpoint, and the product may be subject to expedited withdrawal procedures. Drugs and biologics granted accelerated approval must meet the same statutory standards for safety and effectiveness as those granted traditional approval. Further, all promotional materials for product and therapeutic candidates being considered and approved under the Accelerated Approval Program are subject to prior review by the FDA.

For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign, or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit, but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. Surrogate endpoints can often be measured more easily or more rapidly than clinical endpoints. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a measurement of a therapeutic effect that is considered reasonably likely to predict the clinical benefit of a drug, such as an effect on IMM. The FDA has limited experience with accelerated approvals based on intermediate clinical endpoints, but has indicated that such endpoints generally may support accelerated approval when the therapeutic effect measured by the endpoint is not itself a clinical benefit and basis for traditional approval, if there is a basis for concluding that the therapeutic effect is reasonably likely to predict the ultimate long-term clinical benefit of a drug.

The accelerated approval pathway is most often used in settings in which the course of a disease is long and an extended period of time is required to measure the intended clinical benefit of a drug, even if the effect on the surrogate or intermediate clinical endpoint occurs rapidly. For example, accelerated approval has been used extensively in the development and approval of drugs for treatment of a variety of cancers in which the goal of therapy is generally to improve survival or decrease morbidity and the duration of the typical disease course requires lengthy and sometimes large clinical trials to demonstrate a clinical or survival benefit.

The accelerated approval pathway is usually contingent on a sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the drug’s clinical benefit. As a result, a product or therapeutic candidate approved on this basis is subject to rigorous post-marketing compliance requirements, including the completion of Phase 4 or post-approval clinical trials to confirm the effect on the clinical endpoint. In addition, as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2023, Congress provided FDA additional statutory authority to mitigate potential risks to patients from continued marketing of ineffective drugs previously granted accelerated approval. Under these recent amendments to the FDCA, the agency may require a sponsor of a product granted accelerated approval to have a confirmatory trial underway prior to approval. The sponsor must also submit progress reports on a confirmatory trial every six months until the trial is complete, and such reports will be published on the FDA’s website. Failure to conduct required post-approval studies, or to confirm the predicted clinical benefit of the product during post-marketing studies, allows the FDA to withdraw approval of the drug. Congress also recently amended the law to give FDA the option of using expedited procedures to withdraw product approval if the sponsor’s confirmatory trial fails to verify the claimed clinical benefits of the product. Prior to the recent statutory amendments enacted by Congress, several oncology sponsors voluntarily withdrew specific indications for their drug products that were being marketed pursuant to accelerated approval, and the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence launched an initiative called Project Confirm, aimed at promoting transparency in the area of accelerated approvals for oncology indications. Scrutiny of the accelerated approval pathway is likely to continue in the coming years and may lead to further legislative and/or administrative changes in the future.

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA approval of the use of our therapeutic candidates, some of our United States patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent restoration term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, patent term restoration cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product or therapeutic candidate’s approval date. The patent term restoration period is generally one half of the time between the effective date of an IND and the

submission date of a BLA, plus the time between the submission date of a BLA and the approval of that application, except that the review period is reduced by any time during which the applicant failed to exercise due diligence. Only one patent applicable to an approved product or therapeutic candidate is eligible for the extension and the application for extension must be made prior to expiration of the patent. The USPTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. In the future, we intend to apply for restorations of patent term for some of our currently owned or licensed patents to add patent life beyond their current expiration date, depending on the expected length of clinical trials and other factors involved in the submission of the relevant BLA.

The BPCIA, enacted in 2010, amended the PHSA to authorize the FDA to approve similar versions of innovative biologics such as ours, which are also known as “reference biological products.” The pathway authorized under the BPCIA allows FDA to approve, under an abbreviated application, a biological product that has been shown to be highly similar to a reference product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components; there also can be no clinically meaningful differences between the follow-on product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity and potency. Follow-on biological products approved for marketing using this pathway are commonly known as “biosimilars,” and companies seeking approval of biosimilar products must submit in their abbreviated BLAs data from analytical studies, an assessment of toxicity, and a clinical trial or trials sufficient to meet the statutory standard in order to obtain FDA approval. In addition, an interchangeable product is a biosimilar product that can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient and, for products administered multiple times to an individual, that the product and the reference product may be alternated or switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biological product without such alternation or switch. Upon licensure by the FDA, an interchangeable biosimilar may be substituted for the reference product without the intervention of the health care provider who prescribed the reference product. FDA approved the first interchangeable biosimilars, including an interchangeable monoclonal antibody biosimilar, in 2021.

The BPCIA bars the FDA from approving biosimilar applications for 12 years after a reference biological product receives initial marketing approval. FDA also cannot accept an application for a biosimilar product that is based on the reference biological product until four years after the date of first licensure of the reference product in question. “First licensure” typically means the initial date the particular product at issue was licensed in the United States. Date of first licensure does not include the date of licensure of a supplement for the reference product for a subsequent application filed by the same sponsor or manufacturer of the reference product for a change (not including a modification to the structure of the biological product) that results in a new indication, route of administration, dosing schedule, dosage form, delivery system, delivery device or strength or for a modification to the structure of the biological product that does not result in a change in safety, purity or potency. Therefore, one must determine whether a new product includes a modification to the structure of a previously licensed product that results in a change in safety, purity or potency to assess whether the licensure of the new product is a first licensure that triggers its own period of exclusivity. Whether a subsequent application, if approved, warrants exclusivity as the “first licensure” of a biological product is determined on a case-by-case basis with data submitted by the sponsor.

The BPCIA is complex and is still being interpreted and implemented by the FDA and by federal judges. In addition, recent government proposals have sought to reduce the 12-year reference product exclusivity period. Other aspects of the BPCIA, some of which may impact the BPCIA exclusivity provisions, have also been the subject of recent litigation and legislative amendments. As a result, the ultimate impact, implementation and meaning of the BPCIA continues to be subject to uncertainty.

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant Orphan Drug Designation to a therapeutic candidate intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that affects either (i) fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or (ii) more than 200,000 individuals in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available in the United States a product or therapeutic candidate for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales in the United States for that product or therapeutic candidate. Orphan Drug Designation must be requested before submitting a BLA. After the FDA grants Orphan Drug Designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by

the FDA. Orphan Drug Designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process. In November 2021, ozekibart (INBRX-109) was granted designation as an orphan product by the FDA for the treatment of chondrosarcoma.

If a product or therapeutic candidate that has Orphan Drug Designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease for which it has such designation, the approved product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other marketing applications for the same drug for the same indication, except under limited circumstances (such as showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity by means of greater effectiveness, greater safety or providing a major contribution to patient care or in instances of drug supply issues), for seven years. Competitors, however, may still receive approval of either a different product for the same indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity or for the same product but for a different indication (which could then be used off-label in the orphan indication). Orphan product exclusivity, however, could also block the approval of one of our therapeutic candidates for seven years if a competitor obtains approval of the same drug as defined by the FDA, or if our therapeutic candidate is determined to be contained within a competitor’s approved drug for the same indication or disease. Further, if a drug designated as an orphan product ultimately receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what was designated in its orphan product application, it may not be entitled to exclusivity. Recent court cases have challenged FDA’s approach to determining the scope of orphan drug exclusivity; however, at this time the agency continues to apply its long-standing interpretation of the governing regulations and has stated that it does not plan to change any orphan drug implementing regulations.

In addition, an orphan drug credit is available for qualifying costs incurred between the date the FDA designates a drug as an orphan drug and the date the FDA approves the drug.

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent marketing exclusivity available in the United States and, if granted, it provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing regulatory exclusivity or listed patents. Under the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, certain therapeutic candidates may obtain an additional six months of exclusivity if the sponsor submits information requested in writing by the FDA, referred to as a Written Request, relating to the use of the active moiety of the product or therapeutic candidate in children. The data do not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, the additional protection is granted if the pediatric clinical trial is deemed to have fairly responded to the FDA’s Written Request. Although the FDA may issue a Written Request for studies on either approved or unapproved indications, it may only do so where it determines that information relating to that use of a product or therapeutic candidate in a pediatric population, or part of the pediatric population, may produce health benefits in that population. The issuance of a Written Request does not require the sponsor to undertake the described trials. This is not a patent term extension, but it effectively extends the regulatory period during which the FDA cannot approve another application.

In addition, the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, requires a sponsor to conduct pediatric trials for most therapeutic drugs and biologics, for a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration. Under PREA, original new drug applications, BLAs and supplements thereto must contain a pediatric assessment unless the sponsor has received a deferral or waiver. Sponsors must also submit Pediatric Study Plans, or PSPs, to the agency for review within sixty days of an end-of-Phase 2 meeting or, if there is no such meeting, as early as practicable before the initiation of the Phase 3 or Phase 2/3 clinical trial. The initial PSP must include an outline of the pediatric trial or trials that the sponsor plans to conduct, including trial objectives and design, age groups, relevant endpoints and statistical approach, or a justification for not including such detailed information, and any request for a deferral of pediatric assessments or a full or partial waiver of the requirement to provide data from pediatric trials along with supporting information. The FDA and the sponsor must reach an agreement on the PSP. A sponsor can submit amendments to an agreed upon initial PSP at any time if changes to the pediatric plan need to be considered based on data collected from preclinical studies, early phase clinical trials or other clinical development programs.

The required assessment must assess the safety and effectiveness of the product or therapeutic candidate for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and support dosing and administration for each pediatric

subpopulation for which the product and therapeutic candidate is safe and effective. The sponsor or FDA may request a deferral of pediatric trials for some or all of the pediatric subpopulations. 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 FDA is required to 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, and the FDA publicly posts such PREA Non-Compliance letters and sponsor’s response. Unless otherwise required by regulation, the pediatric data requirements do not apply to products with orphan designation, although FDA has taken steps to limit what it considers abuse of this statutory exemption in PREA by announcing that it does not intend to grant any additional orphan drug designations for rare pediatric subpopulations of what is otherwise a common disease.

Congress periodically considers enacting new incentives or mandates applicable to pediatric drug development, and the regulatory requirements applicable to pediatric drug developers may change in the future. For example, bipartisan legislation introduced in 2023 in the House of Representatives would increase funding for pediatric trials; mandate that drugs for rare diseases be studied in children; and grant FDA authority to assess penalties against companies that do not complete required pediatric studies.

Following approval of a new product, the manufacturer and the approved biological product are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, monitoring and recordkeeping activities, reporting of adverse experiences with the product, product sampling and distribution restrictions, complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include restrictions on promoting drugs for unapproved uses or patient populations (i.e., “off-label use”) and limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities. Although physicians may prescribe legally available products for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such uses. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability. If there are any modifications to the product, including changes in indications, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new BLA or a BLA supplement, which may require the applicant to develop additional data or conduct additional nonclinical studies and clinical trials.

Once an approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product or therapeutic reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product or therapeutic candidate, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, may result in mandatory revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market or clinical trials to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences of non-compliance include, among other things:

Any therapeutic candidate manufactured or distributed by us pursuant to FDA approvals will be subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things:

FDA regulations require that products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with cGMPs. The cGMP regulations include requirements relating to organization of personnel, buildings and facilities, equipment, control of components and drug product containers and closures, production and process controls, packaging and labeling controls, holding and distribution, laboratory controls, records and reports and returned or salvaged products. Therapeutic manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved therapeutic products are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and some state agencies for compliance with cGMPs and other laws. The FDA periodically inspects manufacturing facilities to assess compliance with cGMP requirements. In addition, changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and, depending on the significance of the change, may require FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon the BLA applicant and any third-party manufacturers involved in producing the approved biological product. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP and other aspects of quality control and quality assurance.

In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, or the PDMA, which regulates the distribution of drugs and drug samples at the federal level, and sets minimum standards for the registration and regulation of drug distributors by the states. Both the PDMA and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution. More recently, the Drug Supply Chain Security Act, or the DSCSA, was enacted with the aim of building an electronic system to identify and trace certain prescription drugs distributed in the United States, including most biological products. The DSCSA mandates phased-in and resource-intensive obligations for pharmaceutical manufacturers, wholesale distributors, and dispensers over a 10-year period that culminated in November 2023. However, FDA announced a one-year stabilization period, until November 2024, to give entities subject to the DSCSA additional time to finalize interoperable tracking systems and to ensure supply chain continuity. From time to time, new legislation and regulations may be implemented that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the approval, manufacturing and marketing of products regulated by the FDA. For example, the FDA released proposed regulations in February 2022 to amend the national standards for licensing of wholesale drug distributors by the states; establish new minimum standards for state licensing third-party logistics providers; and create a federal system for licensure for use in the absence of a State program, each of which is mandated by the DSCSA. It is impossible to predict whether further legislative or regulatory changes will be enacted, or FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations changed or what the impact of such changes, if any, may be.

In addition to regulations in the United States, we are subject to regulations of other jurisdictions governing any clinical trials and commercial sales and distribution of our therapeutic candidates. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain approval by the comparable regulatory authorities of countries outside of the United States before we can commence clinical trials in such countries and approval of the regulators of such countries or economic areas, such as the EU, before we may market products in those countries or areas. The approval process and requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly from place to place, and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval.

Under EU regulatory systems, a company can consider applying for marketing authorization in several European Union member states by submitting its marketing authorization application(s) under a centralized, decentralized or

mutual recognition procedure. The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization that is valid for all EU member states. The centralized procedure is compulsory for medicines derived from biotechnology, orphan medicinal products, or those medicines with an active substance not authorized in the EU on or before May 20, 2004 intended to treat acquired immune deficiency syndrome, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders or diabetes and optional for those medicines containing a new active substance not authorized in the EU on or before May 20, 2004, medicines which are highly innovative, or medicines to which the granting of a marketing authorization under the centralized procedure would be in the interest of patients at the European Union-level. The decentralized procedure provides for recognition by EU national authorities of a first assessment performed by one of the member states. Under this procedure, an identical application for marketing authorization is submitted simultaneously to the national authorities of several EU member states, one of them being chosen as the “Reference Member State,” and the remaining being the “Concerned Member States.” The Reference Member State must prepare and send drafts of an assessment report, summary of product characteristics and the labelling and package leaflet within 120 days after receipt of a valid marketing authorization application to the Concerned Member States, which must decide within 90 days whether to recognize approval. If any Concerned Member State does not recognize the marketing authorization on the grounds of potential serious risk to public health, the disputed points are eventually referred to the European Commission, whose decision is binding on all member states. The mutual recognition procedure is similar to the decentralized procedure except that a medicine must have already received a marketing authorization in at least one of the member states, and that member state acts as the Reference Member State.

As in the United States, we may apply for designation of a therapeutic candidate as an orphan drug for the treatment of a specific indication in the EU before the application for marketing authorization is made.

Orphan drugs in the EU enjoy economic and marketing benefits, including up to ten years of market exclusivity for the approved indication unless another applicant can show that its product is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior to the orphan-designated product, the marketing authorization holder is unable to supply sufficient quantity of the medicinal product or the marketing authorization holder has given its consent.

On January 31, 2020, the United Kingdom formally withdrew from the EU, also known as Brexit. The United Kingdom and the EU entered into a trade agreement known as the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which went into effect on January 1, 2021. As a result of Brexit, U.K. licensing decisions were transferred from the EMA to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, the U.K. Regulatory Body. For a period of three years following January 1, 2021, the United Kingdom will continue to adopt decisions taken by the European Commission on the approval of new marketing authorizations. However, companies will be required to submit an identical application to the MHRA upon the Medicinal Products for Human Use, or CHMP, positive opinion of the application. The MHRA will then wait for the European Commission decision on approval. More recently, in March 2023, the U.K. government and the European Commission reached agreement on a regulatory framework to replace the Northern Ireland Protocol, referred to as the Windsor Framework. The Windsor Framework is expected to apply as of January 1, 2025 and will change the existing system under the Northern Ireland Protocol, including the regulation of pharmaceutical products in the United Kingdom. Specifically, the MHRA will be responsible for approving all medicines intended to be marketed in the United Kingdom (i.e., Great Britain and Northern Ireland), while the EMA will no longer be involved in approving medicines intended for sale in Northern Ireland.

Since the regulatory framework in the United Kingdom covering the quality, safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical products, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of pharmaceutical products is derived from EU directives and regulations, Brexit could materially impact the future regulatory regime as it applies to medicinal products and the approval of product candidates in the United Kingdom.

Sales of our products depend, in part, on the extent to which our products are covered by third-party payors, such as government health programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations. There may be significant delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for approved products, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the product is approved by the FDA or regulatory authorities in other countries. It is time consuming and expensive to seek reimbursement from third-party payors. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that any product will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research,

development, manufacture, sale and distribution. Interim payments for new products, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Payment rates may vary according to the use of the product and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on payments allowed for lower cost products that are already reimbursed and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Net prices for products may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by third-party payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of products from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. In the United States, third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement policies, but they also have their own methods and approval process apart from Medicare coverage and reimbursement determinations. Accordingly, one third-party payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the product. In August 2022, President Biden signed into the law the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or the IRA. Among other things, the IRA has multiple provisions that may impact the prices of drug products that are both sold into the Medicare program and throughout the United States. A manufacturer of drugs or biological products covered by Medicare Parts B or D must pay a rebate to the federal government if their drug product’s price increases faster than the rate of inflation. This calculation is made on a drug product by drug product basis and the amount of the rebate owed to the federal government is directly dependent on the volume of a drug product that is paid for by Medicare Parts B or D. Additionally, starting for payment year 2026, the CMS will negotiate drug prices annually for a select number of single source Part D drugs without generic or biosimilar competition. CMS will also negotiate drug prices for a select number of Part B drugs starting for payment year 2028. If a drug product is selected by CMS for negotiation, it is expected that the revenue generated from such drug will decrease. CMS has begun to implement these new authorities and entered into the first set of agreements with pharmaceutical manufacturers to conduct price negotiations in October 2023. However, the IRA’s impact on the pharmaceutical industry in the United States remains uncertain, in part because multiple large pharmaceutical companies and other stakeholders (e.g., the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) have initiated federal lawsuits against CMS arguing the program is unconstitutional for a variety of reasons, among other complaints. Those lawsuits are currently ongoing.

Additionally, the containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal and state governments and the prices of therapeutics have been a focus in this effort. The U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic and biosimilar products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit our net revenue and results. If these third-party payors do not consider our products to be cost-effective compared to other therapies, they may not cover our products after approval as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our products on a profitable basis. In addition, companion diagnostic tests require coverage and reimbursement separate and apart from the coverage and reimbursement for their companion pharmaceutical or biological products. Similar challenges to obtaining coverage and reimbursement for the pharmaceutical or biological products apply to companion diagnostics.

Moreover, in some foreign countries, the proposed pricing for a product and therapeutic candidate must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing therapeutic pricing vary widely from country to country. For example, the EU provides options for its member states to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. A member state may approve a specific price for the medicinal product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our therapeutic candidates. Historically, therapeutic candidates launched in the EU do not follow price structures of the United States and generally tend to be significantly lower.

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and continue to be, several legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of product and therapeutic candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities, and affect the ability to

profitably sell product and therapeutic candidates that obtain marketing approval. The FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay marketing approval of our product and therapeutic candidates. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we otherwise may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. Moreover, among policy makers and payors in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and/or expanding access.

For example, the ACA was enacted in March 2010 and has had a significant impact on the health care industry in the United States. The ACA expanded coverage for the uninsured while at the same time containing overall healthcare costs. It also included the BPCIA, which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. With regard to biopharmaceutical products, the ACA, among other things, addressed a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extended the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, established annual fees on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs, and created a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program. As another example, the 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act signed into law on December 27, 2020 incorporated extensive healthcare provisions and amendments to existing laws, including a requirement that all manufacturers of drugs and biological products covered under Medicare Part B report the product’s average sales price to HHS beginning on January 1, 2022, subject to enforcement via civil money penalties. The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 also included a provision that eliminated the statutory cap on rebates that drug manufacturers pay to Medicaid. Beginning in January 2024, Medicaid rebates are no longer capped at 100 percent of the quarterly average manufacturer price.

We expect that further legislative changes or additions to the ACA, the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and changes stemming from other healthcare reform measures, especially with regard to healthcare access, financing or other legislation in individual states, could have a material adverse effect on the health care industry in the United States.

Moreover, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products.

Individual states in the United States have also increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In December 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that federal law does not preempt the states’ ability to regulate PBMs and other members of the healthcare and pharmaceutical supply chain, an important decision that has led to more aggressive efforts by states in this area. The Federal Trade Commission in mid-2022 also launched sweeping investigations into the practices of the PBM industry that could lead to additional federal and state legislative or regulatory proposals targeting such entities’ operations, pharmacy networks, or financial arrangements. During the current congressional session, numerous PBM reforms are being considered in both the Senate and the House of Representatives; they include diverse legislative proposals such as eliminating rebates; divorcing service fees from the price of a drug, discount, or rebate; prohibiting spread pricing; limiting administrative fees; requiring PBMs to report formulary placement rationale; promoting transparency. Significant efforts to change the PBM industry as it currently exists in the U.S. may affect the entire pharmaceutical supply chain and the business of other stakeholders, including therapeutic biological product developers like us.

We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative or executive action, either in the United States or abroad. We expect that additional state and federal health care reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for health care products and services.

Our current and future business operations are subject to healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and the states and foreign governments where we research, and, if approved, market, sell and distribute our therapeutic candidates. These laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, privacy and security, physician sunshine and drug pricing transparency laws and regulations such as:

Ensuring that our current and future business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations could involve substantial costs. 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 such requirements, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, including monetary damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, loss of eligibility to obtain approvals from the FDA, exclusion from participation in government contracting, healthcare reimbursement or other government programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting requirements if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with any of these laws, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.

HIPAA, as well as a number of other federal and state privacy-related laws, extensively regulate the use and disclosure of individually identifiable health information, known as “protected health information,” or PHI.

HIPAA applies to health plans, healthcare providers who engage in certain standard healthcare transactions electronically, such as electronic billing, and healthcare clearinghouses, all of which are referred to as “covered entities” under HIPAA. State imposed health information privacy and security laws typically apply based on licensure, for example, licensed providers or licensed entities are limited in their ability to use and share health information. State and federal consumer protection laws, including the Federal Trade Commission Act, govern the collection, use disclosure and protection of health and other personal information and could apply to our operations.

Additionally, all states have enacted legislation protecting the privacy and security of “personal information” such as identifiable financial or health information, social security number and credit card information. These laws overlap and apply simultaneously with federal privacy and security requirements and regulated entities must comply with all of them. The CCPA that went into effect January 1, 2020, is one of the most restrictive state privacy laws, protecting a wide variety of personal information and granting significant rights to California residents with respect to their personal information. Regulations under CCPA have been modified several times. While there is currently an exception under CCPA for PHI that is subject to HIPAA and clinical trial regulations, CCPA still applies to the personal information of employees and may otherwise impact our business. Additionally, an amendment to the CCPA, the CPRA, was approved by California voters in the election of November 3, 2020 and took full effect on January 1, 2023. CPRA modifies CCPA significantly, potentially resulting in further uncertainty, additional costs and expenses stemming from efforts to comply, and additional potential for harm and liability for failure to comply. Among other things, CPRA established a new regulatory authority, the CPPA with expanded enforcement authority. The CPPA is currently promulgating additional regulations under the CPRA, which could lead to added uncertainty and operational risks. Other states in the United States are considering privacy laws similar to CCPA increasing the regulatory and enforcement risk. In addition to California, several states have similar omnibus privacy laws, which took effect in 2023, including Virginia, Colorado, Connecticut, and Utah, that may have operational impacts on our business. In dealing with health information for the development of our technology or for commercial purposes, we will be indirectly affected by HIPAA and state-imposed health information privacy and security laws because these laws regulate the ability of our potential customers and research collaborators to share health information with us. Additionally, we must identify and comply with all applicable state laws for the protection of personal information

with respect to employee information or other personal information that the company collects. See “Risk Factors — Risks Related to Government Regulation — We face regulation and potential liability related to privacy, data protection and information security which may require significant resources and may adversely affect our business, operations and financial performance.”

In the EU, increasingly stringent data protection and privacy rules that have and will continue to have substantial impact on the use of personal and patient data across the healthcare industry became stronger in May 2018. GDPR applies across the EU and includes, among other things, a requirement for prompt notice of data breaches to data subjects and supervisory authorities in certain circumstances and significant fines for non-compliance. The GDPR fine framework can be up to 20 million euros, or up to 4% of the company’s total global turnover of the preceding fiscal year, whichever is higher. The GDPR sets out a number of requirements that must be complied with when processing the personal data of such EU based data subjects including: providing expanded disclosures about how their personal data will be used; higher standards for organizations to demonstrate that they have obtained valid consent or have another legal basis in place to justify their data processing activities; the obligation to appoint data protection officers in certain circumstances; new rights for individuals to be “forgotten” and rights to data portability, as well as enhanced current rights (e.g., access requests); the principal of accountability and demonstrating compliance through policies, procedures, training and audit; and the new mandatory data breach regime. In particular, medical or health data, genetic data and biometric data where the latter is used to uniquely identify an individual are all classified as “special category” data under the GDPR and are afforded greater protection and require additional compliance obligations. Noncompliance could result in the imposition of fines, penalties, or orders to stop noncompliant activities. We may be subject to GDPR if we undertake operations in the EU, offer products or services to individuals in the EU or monitor the behavior of individuals within the EU.

We could also be subject to evolving EU laws on data export, for transfers of data outside the EU to us, group companies or third parties. The GDPR only permits exports of data outside the EU to jurisdictions that ensure an adequate level of data protection. The United States has not been deemed to offer an adequate level of protection, so in order for us to transfer personal data from the EU to the United States, we must identify a legal basis for data transfer (e.g., the European Union Commission approved Standard Contractual Clauses or certification under the recently-adopted EU-US Data Privacy Framework). On July 16, 2020, the CJEU issued a landmark opinion in the case Maximilian Schrems vs. Facebook (Case C-311/18), called Schrems II. This decision (i) calls into question commonly relied upon data transfer mechanisms as between the EU member states and the United States (such as the Standard Contractual Clauses) and (ii) invalidates the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield on which many companies had relied as an acceptable mechanism for transferring such data from the EU to the United States. The CJEU is the highest court in Europe and the Schrems II decision heightens the burden on data importers to assess U.S. national security laws on their business and future actions of EU data protection authorities are difficult to predict. While the recently-adopted EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework was meant to address the concerns raised by the CJEU in Schrems II and provide an approved method for cross-border data transfer from the EU to the United States, it will likely be subject to future legal challenges and we have not certified to participate in the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework.

Where we rely on third parties to carry out services for us, including processing personal data on our behalf, we are required under GDPR to enter into contractual arrangements to help ensure that these third parties only process such data according to our instructions and have sufficient security measures in place. Any security breach or non-compliance with our contractual terms or breach of applicable law by such third parties could result in enforcement actions, litigation, fines and penalties or adverse publicity and could cause our customers to lose trust in us, which could have an adverse impact on our reputation and business. Any contractual arrangements requiring the transfer of personal data from the EU to us in the United States requires greater scrutiny and assessments as required under Schrems II and may have an adverse impact on cross-border transfers of personal data, or increase costs of compliance.

Our present business is, and our future business may be, subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,

national restrictions, and other current and potential future local, state, federal, and foreign regulations. See “Risk Factors — Risks Related to Government Regulation — If we do not comply with laws regulating the protection of the environment and health and human safety, our business could be adversely affected.”

Human Capital Resources

Our employees are a key factor in our ability to achieve our mission to discover and develop effective biologic therapeutics for people with life-threatening conditions. We believe that our future success depends on our continued ability to identify, recruit, retain, and incentivize our management team and our clinical, scientific, and other employees. Our ability to do so depends on factors including our Company culture, compensation and benefits, growth and development opportunities, and prioritization of employee safety.

Employee Profile

As of May 30, 2024, we had 163 employees, 156 of whom were full-time, 131 of whom were engaged in research and development activity, and 74 of which hold advanced degrees, including but not limited to Ph.D., M.D., PharmD, J.D., MBA, and other master’s degrees. None of the employees are represented by a labor union and we believe we maintain good relations with our employees.

Our employees represent a broad range of backgrounds and bring a wide array of perspectives and experiences. A key component of our culture is our commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI. We believe this commitment allows us to better drive innovation and achieve our mission. Our DEI principles are reflected in our efforts in building a better workplace where employees can be themselves and succeed and use their voice and influence to create a better world. We are consciously expanding the diversity of our workforce, creating growth and development opportunities for our employees, embracing different perspectives and fostering an inclusive work environment.

We adopted corporate policies, including a Code of Conduct and Ethics and Whistleblower Policy, which apply to all of our employees. All employees complete a mandatory public company training session and are required to abide by, review and confirm compliance to the Company’s Corporate Code of Conduct and Ethics and Whistleblower Policy, as well as our Insider Trading Policy governing trading by Company personnel in the Company’s securities. We have established a whistleblower reporting hotline to enable our employees to anonymously report any suspected violations of these policies. In addition, the Company requires employees to complete Anti-Harassment Training, with employees who work in a management capacity required to complete additional trainings in Harassment Prevention and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.

Our compensation programs are designed to reward and support our employees in order to continue to attract and retain top talent. Our compensation includes:

We are committed to fostering and growing talent within the biopharmaceutical and life sciences space. We provide internship opportunities for students interested in biotechnology and science within our research and development departments. Many of our interns have continued on to join the Company in a full-time position after graduation. Our hiring process is transparent and we are an equal opportunity employer. Many of our employees hold advanced degrees, as well as professional licenses and certifications; however, the Company equally commits resources to advancing all of our employees with a range of educational backgrounds. We offer tuition reimbursement aimed at growth and career development, as well as the opportunity for employees to attend relevant conferences and symposiums. In addition, we offer in-house coaching opportunities to refine or develop professional skills as our employees become managers and plan their career growth.

We are strongly committed to the health and safety of our employees and strive to maintain the highest possible level of safety in our workplace. We require annual workplace safety training to reinforce workplace safety procedures that may be useful in the event of emergency situations and to assist our employees in helping to prevent workplace accidents. Our Environmental Health and Safety Committee, which is comprised of numerous cross-departmental members, meets regularly to review workplace safety and adherence to safety policies.

Corporate Information

The Company was incorporated as Ibex SpinCo, Inc. on January 8, 2024 under the laws of the State of Delaware as a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of the Former Parent. We changed our name from Ibex SpinCo, Inc. to Inhibrx Biosciences, Inc. on January 25, 2024. Our corporate headquarters are located at 11025 N. Torrey Pines Road, Suite 140, La Jolla, CA 92037, and our telephone number is (858) 795-4220. Our website address is www.inhibrx.com. Information contained on, or that can be accessed through, our website is not part of, and is not incorporated into, this prospectus.

Available Information

Our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and all amendments to those reports are and will be available to you free of charge through the “Investors” section on our website as soon as reasonably practicable after such materials have been electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. The SEC maintains an internet site (http://www.sec.gov) that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC.

Properties

Our headquarters are located in La Jolla, California where we currently lease approximately 43,000 square feet of laboratory and office space under a lease that expires in 2025. We have an option to extend the lease an additional five years. We believe that this space is sufficient to meet our needs for the foreseeable future and that any additional space we may require will be available on commercially reasonable terms.

Legal Proceedings

Except as disclosed below, we are not currently a party to any material legal proceedings. From time to time, we may become involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of our business. Regardless of outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us due to defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources, negative publicity, reputational harm and other factors.

On March 1, 2022, I-Mab filed a lawsuit against us and Brendan Eckelman, the Company’s co-founder and Chief Scientific Officer, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, C.A. No. 22-00276-CJB, asserting claims for misappropriation of trade secrets related to Dr. Eckelman’s service as an expert witness for Tracon in Tracon’s arbitration against I-Mab. The parties are currently engaged in expert discovery and summary judgment motions are expected to be filed in or around June 2024, with trial currently scheduled to commence in October 2024. I-Mab is seeking royalty damages and alternative damages in the form of unjust enrichment.

Emerging Growth Company and Smaller Reporting Company Status

We qualify as an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012, or JOBS Act, and we are eligible to take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not “emerging growth companies.” These exemptions generally include, but are not limited to, not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements and exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and stockholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved.

We plan to take advantage of some or all of the reduced regulatory and reporting requirements that will be available to us as long as we qualify as an emerging growth company, except that we have irrevocably elected not to take advantage of the extension of time to comply with new or revised financial accounting standards available under Section 102(b) of the JOBS Act.

We will, in general, remain as an emerging growth company for up to five full fiscal years following the completion of the Distribution. We would cease to be an emerging growth company and, therefore, become ineligible to rely on the above exemptions, if we:

We are also a “smaller reporting company,” as defined by applicable rules of the SEC. We may continue to be a smaller reporting company even after we are no longer an emerging growth company. We may take advantage of certain of the scaled disclosures available to smaller reporting companies and will be able to take advantage of these scaled disclosures for so long as our voting and non-voting Common Stock held by non-affiliates is less than $250.0 million measured on the last business day of our second fiscal quarter, or our annual revenue is less than $100.0 million during the most recently completed fiscal year and our voting and non-voting Common Stock held by non-affiliates is less than $700.0 million measured on the last business day of our second fiscal quarter.

The following table sets forth the unaudited historical capitalization and cash and equivalents of the Former Parent (accounting predecessor to the Company) as of March 31, 2024, and the unaudited pro forma capitalization of the Company (accounting successor to the Former Parent) as of March 31, 2024. The information below is not necessarily indicative of what the Company’s cash and cash equivalents and capitalization would have been had the Separation, Distribution and related transactions been completed as of the three months ended March 31, 2024. In addition, it is not indicative of the Company’s future capitalization. For further explanation of the Company, see “Unaudited Pro Forma Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements” elsewhere in this prospectus.

This table should be read in conjunction with, the Company’s supplemental combined financial statements and related notes and the “Unaudited Pro Forma Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” sections included elsewhere in this prospectus.

On January 23, 2024, the Former Parent announced that its board of directors had approved the Separation and Distribution. Following the Distribution, the Former Parent stockholders owned 92% of the issued and outstanding shares of our Common Stock as of the time of the Distribution and the Former Parent retained 8% of the issued and outstanding shares of our Common Stock as of the time of the Distribution. Immediately following and in connection with the Distribution, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Acquirer merged with and into the Former Parent. Notwithstanding the legal form of the Spin-Off described elsewhere in this prospectus, because a wholly-owned subsidiary of Acquirer merged with and into the Former Parent immediately following the Distribution, no senior management of the Former Parent was retained by the Former Parent following the Distribution and based on the relative size of our operations relative to the Former Parent Business, we consider our Company as the accounting spinnor of the Former Parent, and the accounting successor to the Former Parent for financial reporting purposes in accordance with ASC 505-60, Spinoffs and Reverse Spinoffs. We reported the sale of the Former Parent Business as the transfer of nonmonetary assets in accordance with ASC 845, Nonmonetary Transactions. For additional information, refer to “Note 1 — Basis of Presentation” below.

The unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated financial statements were prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, or GAAP, and in accordance with Article 11 of the SEC’s Regulation S-X. The unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated financial statements consist of the unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated statements of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2024 and the year ended December 31, 2023 and the unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2024. The unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with our supplemental combined financial statements and the related notes, and the related sections of this prospectus entitled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” included elsewhere in this prospectus. The unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated statements of operations have been prepared to give effect to the Pro Forma Transactions (as defined below) as if the Pro Forma Transactions had occurred or became effective as of January 1, 2023, the beginning of our most recently completed fiscal year. The unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated balance sheet has been prepared to give effect to the Pro Forma Transactions as though the Pro Forma Transactions had occurred as of March 31, 2024.

The unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated financial statements below do not purport to represent what our financial position and results of operations would have been had the Pro Forma Transactions occurred on the dates indicated and are not necessarily indicative of our future financial position and future results of operations. In addition, the unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated financial statements are provided for illustrative and informational purposes only. The Pro Forma Transactions are based on available information and assumptions we believe are reasonable; however, such adjustments are subject to change.

The unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated financial statements include adjustments, or collectively, the Pro Forma Transactions, to reflect the following:

The Pro Forma Transactions are based on available information and assumptions that management believes are reasonable given the information that is currently available. The unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated financial statements do not necessarily represent our financial position or results of operations had we operated as a standalone company during the period or at the date presented. As a result, autonomous entity adjustments have been reflected in the unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated financial statements.

The unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated financial statements constitute forward-looking information and are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated. See the sections “Risk Factors” and “Cautionary Statement Concerning Forward-Looking Statements,” included elsewhere in this prospectus.

UNAUDITED PRO FORMA CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS

UNAUDITED PRO FORMA CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS

UNAUDITED PRO FORMA CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET

Note 1: Basis of Presentation

As described elsewhere in this prospectus, for periods prior to the Spin-Off, our financial statements are the historical financial statements of the Former Parent. Therefore, the Former Parent in the pro forma financial information above represents the Former Parent and its consolidated subsidiaries (including our Company), as defined elsewhere in this prospectus, before giving effect to the Separation and Distribution.

As discussed above and elsewhere in this prospectus, the Separation and Distribution is being treated as a reverse spin-off for financial accounting and reporting purposes under GAAP and, as a result, the Former Parent Business is presented as being spun-off from the Former Parent in accordance with ASC 505-60-25-8. The information included in the “Separation of the Former Parent Business” columns in the unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated balance sheet and statements of operations are comprised of the assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses specifically identifiable and attributable to the Former Parent Business and allocated to us under the Distribution Agreement that are separated from the Former Parent. No expenses were allocated to the Former Parent as our operations are expected to remain consistent with the pre-Separation operations of the Former Parent. The Separation and Distribution resulted in our Company and the Former Parent each becoming stand-alone, publicly traded companies. Immediately following the Distribution, the Former Parent merged with and into a wholly-owned subsidiary of Acquirer and continued as the surviving entity. We continue to operate as the accounting successor to the Former Parent.

We reviewed ASC 205-20, Discontinued Operations as it relates to the Separation. In our industry, the disposition of compounds upon reaching viability is typically a part of an entity’s ongoing strategy and does not usually represent a strategic shift or have an impact on go-forward operations. Since none of our assets are currently FDA-approved and / or commercialized, we do not consider the disposition of one of our several clinical-stage assets in our pipeline to be a major line of business nor is it substantially different from the assets remaining in the business. As such, upon reviewing the circumstances of the transaction, we determined that the Separation does not represent a strategic shift for us and therefore the Separation does not qualify as a discontinued operation.

We evaluated how to account for the sale of the Former Parent Business in accordance with GAAP. In reviewing ASC 805, Business Combinations, we determined that the Former Parent Business does not meet the definition of a business given substantially all of the fair value of the gross assets transferred is concentrated in one asset. As the Former Parent Business does not meet the definition of a business in accordance with ASC 805, we, therefore, reviewed ASC 845, Nonmonetary Transactions, which contains guidance on the accounting for the distribution of nonmonetary assets to stockholders of an entity in a spin-off, although from a legal perspective, the transaction is the sale of the Former Parent Business to Acquirer in exchange for its purchase of all outstanding shares of the Former Parent for cash and contingent value rights. Therefore, the disposal of the Former Parent Business is accounted for as a dividend-in-kind, and a gain is recognized for the difference between the fair value and carrying value of the disposed assets in accordance with ASC 845-10-30-10.

Note 2: Separation of the Former Parent Business

As discussed in Note 1, the disposal of the Former Parent Business is accounted for as a dividend-in-kind, and a gain is recognized for the difference between the fair value and carrying value of the disposed assets in accordance with ASC 845-10-30-10. For the three months ended March 31, 2024, this adjustment reflects the $297.0 million gain recognized by us in exchange for $2.7 million of “Other receivables,” $5.1 million of “Prepaid expenses and other current assets,” $27.4 million of “Accrued expenses,” $2.4 million of “Accounts payable,” $3.6 million of “Current portion of long-term debt” net of unamortized debt issuance costs of $5.1 million and $204.6 million of “Long-term debt” net of unamortized debt issuance costs of $4.7 million, as well as $66.8 million of accrued transaction expenses assumed by the Former Parent as a result of the Separation. The impacts of any consideration transferred from Former Parent to us are included as Transaction Accounting Adjustments (see Note 3).

For the three months ended March 31, 2024, this adjustment also reflects the removal of $20.0 million of “Research and development expense” and $0.4 million of “General and administrative expense” specifically identifiable and directly attributable to the Former Parent Business. For the year ended December 31, 2023, this adjustment also

reflects the removal of $0.2 million of “License fee revenue,” $54.3 million of “Research and development expense” and $1.4 million of “General and administrative expense” specifically identifiable and directly attributable to the Former Parent Business. Finally, this adjustment reflects $9.8 million related to a loss on extinguishment of debt existing as of March 31, 2024 as a result of the Distribution, reflected in the year ended December 31, 2023. The impacts of this adjustment are non-recurring on a go-forward basis for us.

Note 3: Transaction Accounting Adjustments

The unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2024, and the unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2024 and the year ended December 31, 2023, include the following transaction accounting adjustments:

Note 4: Autonomous Entity Adjustments

Overview

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with a pipeline of novel biologic therapeutic candidates, developed using our proprietary modular protein engineering platforms. We leverage our innovative protein engineering technologies and deep understanding of target biology to create therapeutic candidates with attributes and mechanisms superior to current approaches and applicable to a range of challenging, validated targets with high potential.

Our current clinical pipeline of therapeutic candidates includes INBRX-109 and INBRX-106, both of which utilize our multivalent formats where the precise valency can be optimized in a target-centric way to mediate what we believe to be the most appropriate agonist function.

__________________

*    Currently being investigated in chondrosarcoma, Ewing sarcoma, colorectal cancer, and certain other solid tumor types.

**    Currently being investigated in patients with NSCLC and HNSCC.

Our most advanced therapeutic candidate, INBRX-109, is a tetravalent death receptor 5, or DR5, agonist currently being evaluated in patients diagnosed with difficult-to-treat cancers, such as chondrosarcoma, mesothelioma, colorectal cancer, Ewing sarcoma and pancreatic adenocarcinoma. In June 2021, based on the initial Phase 1 data results, we initiated a Phase 2 trial for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic conventional chondrosarcoma for which the FDA and the European Medicine Agency, or EMA, granted orphan drug designation in November 2021 and August 2022, respectively. In November 2022, we announced updated efficacy and safety data from the ongoing Phase 1 INBRX-109 expansion cohorts for the treatment of chondrosarcoma, which showed disease control was observed in patients with and without isocitrate dehydrogenase, or IDH, mutations. Data from the Phase 2 trial in unresectable or metastatic conventional chondrosarcoma is expected during the first half of 2025.

On November 2, 2023, we announced preliminary efficacy and safety data from the Phase 1 trial of INBRX-109 in combination with Irinotecan, or IRI, and Temozolomide, or TMZ, for the treatment of advanced or metastatic, unresectable Ewing sarcoma. Among the 13 patients evaluable as of the data cut of September 8, 2023, the observed disease control rate was 76.9%, or 10 out of 13 patients as measured by RECISTv1.1, with 7 patients achieving partial responses (53.8%) and 3 patients achieving stable disease (23.1%). Overall, INBRX-109 in combination with IRI/TMZ was well tolerated from a safety perspective. We have expanded recruitment of this cohort as a result of these preliminary findings.

INBRX-106 is a precisely engineered hexavalent sdAb-based therapeutic candidate targeting OX40, designed to be an optimized agonist of this co-stimulatory receptor. It is currently being investigated as a single agent and in combination with Keytruda in patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors. Parts 1 and 3, dose escalation as a single agent and in combination with Keytruda, have been completed. It was observed to be well tolerated, with predominantly mild or moderate immune-related toxicities notes. We observed durable responses

across multiple tumor types. We expanded the enrollment for Part 2, single agent dose expansion, to increase the dataset in the single agent cohorts and to enroll additional NSCLC patients. We expect to announce additional data from Part 2 in 2025. We continue to enroll patients with NSCLC and HNSCC in Part 4, combination expansion cohorts. We are in the process of expanding these cohorts and expect to initiate at least one additional cohort by mid 2024. We expect to have a more mature dataset during the third quarter of 2025 and plan to provide an update at that time.

We have decided to terminate our INBRX-105 program, a tetravalent programmed death-ligand 1, or PD-L1, targeted 4-1BB agonist. During the length of our Phase 1/2 trial, we dosed approximately 150 patients. We initially observed single agent complete and partial responses in non-small cell lung cancer, or NSCLC, and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, or HNSCC. We also observed partial responses with INBRX-105 in combination with Keytruda. However, after evaluation of the totality of the data from the expansion cohorts, we concluded the initial signal was not sufficiently validated to support the continuation of this program. We are in the process of winding down the clinical trial and expect it to be complete within the first half of 2024.

Components of Results of Operations

To date, all of our revenue has been derived from licenses and grant awards. We have not generated any revenue from the commercial sale of approved therapeutic products.

Research and Development

To date, our research and development expenses have related primarily to research activities, including our discovery efforts, and preclinical and clinical development and the manufacturing of our therapeutic candidates. Research and development expenses are recognized as incurred and payments made prior to the receipt of goods or services to be used in research and development are capitalized until the goods or services are received.

In accordance with the applicable accounting and regulatory requirements, we track all research and development expenses in the aggregate and do not manage or track either external or internal expenses on a program-by-program basis. External research and development expenses are instead managed and tracked by the nature of the activity, and primarily consist of contract manufacturing and clinical trial expenses. Internal research and development expenses primarily relate to personnel, early research and consumable costs, which are deployed across multiple projects under development. We manage and prioritize our research and development expenses based on scientific data, probability of successful technical development and regulatory approval, market potential and unmet medical need, among other considerations. We regularly review our research and development activities and, as necessary, reallocate resources that we believe will best support the long-term growth of our overall business. We review expenses incurred by vendor and by contract as benchmarked against the progression of our clinical and other milestones.

Research and development expenses consist primarily of:

We expect that research and development expense will continue to increase over the next several years as we continue development of our therapeutic candidates currently in clinical stage development, support our preclinical programs, and continue to discover new therapeutic candidates, as well as increase our headcount. In particular, clinical development of our therapeutic candidates, as opposed to preclinical development, generally has higher development costs, primarily due to the increased size and duration of later-stage clinical trials. Moreover, the costs associated with our CDMOs to manufacture our therapeutic candidates and future commercial products is also much more costly as compared to early stage preclinical development. We cannot determine with certainty the timing of initiation, the duration or the completion costs of current or future preclinical studies and clinical trials of our therapeutic candidates due to the inherently unpredictable nature of preclinical and clinical development. Preclinical and clinical development timelines, the probability of success and development costs can differ materially from expectations. We anticipate that we will make determinations as to which therapeutic candidates to pursue and how much funding to direct to each therapeutic candidate on an ongoing basis in response to the results of ongoing and future preclinical studies and clinical trials, regulatory developments and our ongoing assessments as to each therapeutic candidate’s commercial potential. We will need substantial additional capital in the future to support these efforts. In addition, we cannot forecast which therapeutic candidates may be subject to future collaborations, when such arrangements will be secured, if at all, and to what degree such arrangements would affect our development plans and capital requirements.

Our clinical development costs may vary significantly based on factors such as:

General and Administrative

General and administrative, or G&A, expenses consist primarily of:

We expect our G&A expenses will continue to increase in the future to support our continued research and development activities. We expect increased costs related to pre-commercialization and business development activities, including the hiring of additional personnel as we continue to build our commercial team in preparation for our future product launches. Additionally, we expect other professional service fees to increase, including but not limited to, patent-related costs for filing, prosecution and maintenance of our product candidates, and compliance costs, accounting, legal, investor and public relations and additional personnel.

Our equity interest in Phylaxis BioScience, LLC, or Phylaxis, is accounted for as an equity method investment and the Company’s proportionate share of the net income or loss of Phylaxis is included as loss in equity method investment in the consolidated statement of operations.

Results of Operations

The following table summarizes our condensed consolidated results of operations for each of the periods indicated (in thousands, except percentages):