Cue Biopharma (CUE) Risk Analysis

Because our licensor has conducted research under federal grants and we may conduct further research under federal grants, we will be subject to federal regulation in how we conduct our research and the agreement terms relating to those grants. There are also ethical guidelines promulgated by various governments and research institutions that we are required to follow in respect of our research. These guidelines are orientated towards research and experimentation involving humans and animals. Failure to follow the regulations, agreement terms and accepted scientific practices would jeopardize our grants and our results and the use of the results in further research and approval circumstances. Because our licensor has used federal funding, the government retains a "march-in" right in connection with these grants, which is the right to grant additional licenses to practice inventions developed from grant funding. In December 2023, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST, released for public comment a Draft Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of March-In Rights, or the Draft Framework. The Draft Framework sets forth the factors that an agency may consider when deciding whether to exercise march-in rights pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act and includes a first-ever specification that price can be a factor in determining that a drug or other taxpayer-funded invention is not accessible to the public. NIST is currently seeking public comments on the proposed Draft Framework. The potential inclusion of price as a factor in a march-in determination and the exercise of "march-in" rights by the federal government could result in decreased demand for our future products, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. In addition, any failure to comply with applicable laws or regulations could harm our business and divert our management's attention.

Under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or the FDCA, and implementing regulations, the FDA may grant accelerated approval to a product candidate to treat a serious or life-threatening condition that provides meaningful therapeutic benefit over available therapies, upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint or intermediate clinical endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA considers a clinical benefit to be a positive therapeutic effect that is clinically meaningful in the context of a given disease, such as irreversible morbidity or mortality. For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign, or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit, but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit measurement of a therapeutic effect that is considered reasonably likely to predict the clinical benefit of a drug. The accelerated approval pathway may be used in cases in which the advantage of a new drug over available therapy may not be a direct therapeutic advantage, but is a clinically important improvement from a patient and public health perspective. Prior to seeking such accelerated approval, we will continue to seek feedback from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory agencies and otherwise evaluate our ability to seek and receive such accelerated approval. There can be no assurance that the FDA or foreign regulatory agencies will agree with our surrogate endpoints or intermediate clinical endpoints in any of our clinical trials, or that we will decide to pursue or submit any additional applications for accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval. Similarly, there can be no assurance that, after feedback from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory agencies, we will continue to pursue or apply for accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval. Furthermore, for any submission of an application for accelerated approval or application under another expedited regulatory designation, there can be no assurance that such submission or application will be accepted for filing or that any expedited development, review or approval will be granted on a timely basis, or at all. Finally, there can be no assurance that we will satisfy all FDA requirements, including new provisions that govern accelerated approval. For example, with passage of the FDORA in December 2022, Congress modified certain provisions governing accelerated approval of drug and biologic products. Specifically, the new legislation authorized the FDA to (i) require a sponsor to have its confirmatory clinical trial underway before accelerated approval is awarded; (ii) require a sponsor of a product granted accelerated approval to submit progress reports on its post-approval studies to FDA every six months until the study is completed; and (iii) use expedited procedures to withdraw accelerated approval of an NDA or a BLA after the confirmatory trial fails to verify the product's clinical benefit. Further, FDORA requires the agency to publish on its website "the rationale for why a post-approval study is not appropriate or necessary" whenever it decides not to require such a study upon granting accelerated approval. We will need to fully comply with these and other requirements in connection with the development and approval of any product candidate that qualifies for accelerated approval. In March 2023, the FDA issued draft guidance that outlines its current thinking and approach to accelerated approval. The FDA indicated that the accelerated approval pathway is commonly used for approval of oncology drugs due to the serious and life-threatening nature of cancer. Although single-arm trials have been commonly used to support accelerated approval, a randomized controlled trial is the preferred approach as it provides a more robust efficacy and safety assessment and allows for direct comparisons to an available therapy. To that end, the FDA outlined considerations for designing, conducting, and analyzing data for trials intended to support accelerated approvals of oncology therapeutics. While this guidance is currently only in draft form and will ultimately not be legally binding even when finalized, we will need to observe the FDA's guidance closely to ensure that our products qualify for accelerated approval. Accordingly, a failure to obtain and maintain accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval for our drug product candidates, or withdrawal of a product candidate, would result in a longer time period until commercialization of such product candidate, could increase the cost of development of such product candidate and could harm our competitive position in the marketplace.

Healthcare providers, physicians, and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any of our drug product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Our future arrangements with third-party payors and customers may 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 products for which we obtain marketing approval. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations include the following: - the federal healthcare anti-kickback statute prohibits, among other things, persons from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, receiving, or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, order, or recommendation of, any good or service, for which payment may be made under federal and state healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid;- the federal False Claims Act imposes criminal and civil penalties, including civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, against individuals or entities for knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, to the federal government, claims for payment or approval from Medicare, Medicaid, or other government payors that are false or fraudulent or making a false statement to avoid, decrease, or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government, with potential liability including mandatory treble damages and significant per-claim penalties;- the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, as further amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, which imposes certain requirements, including mandatory contractual terms, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security, and transmission of individually identifiable health information without appropriate authorization by entities subject to the rule, such as health plans, health care clearinghouses, and health care providers;- the federal false statements statute, which prohibits knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing, or covering up a material fact or making any materially false statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items, or services;- the federal transparency requirements under the federal Physician Payment Sunshine Act, which requires manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics, and medical supplies to report to the HHS information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians, other healthcare providers and teaching hospitals, and ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members and applicable group purchasing organizations; and - analogous state laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, which may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers, and certain state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry's voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government in addition to requiring drug manufacturers to report information related to payments to physicians and other health care providers or marketing expenditures. Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other government regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from participation in government health care programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, imprisonment, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians to induce or encourage the prescription, recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order, or use of medicinal products is prohibited in the European Union. The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians is also governed by the national anti-bribery laws of European Union Member States, such as the UK Bribery Act 2010. Infringement of these laws could result in substantial fines and imprisonment. Payments made to physicians in certain European Union Member States must be publicly disclosed. Moreover, agreements with physicians often must be the subject of prior notification and approval by the physician's employer, his or her competent professional organization, and/or the regulatory authorities of the individual European Union Member States. These requirements are provided in the national laws, industry codes, or professional codes of conduct applicable in the European Union Member States. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines, or imprisonment. Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal, and administrative penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any of the physicians or other providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil, or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs. Liabilities they incur pursuant to these laws could result in significant costs or an interruption in operations, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

The prices of prescription pharmaceuticals have been the subject of considerable legislative and executive actions in the United States. There have been several recent U.S. congressional inquiries, as well as proposed and enacted state and federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to pharmaceutical pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reduce the costs of pharmaceuticals under Medicare and Medicaid. In 2020, the White House issued several executive orders intended to lower the costs of prescription products and certain provisions in these orders have been incorporated into regulations. These regulations include an interim final rule implementing a most favored nation model for prices that would tie Medicare Part B payments for certain physician-administered pharmaceuticals to the lowest price paid in other economically advanced countries, effective January 1, 2021. That rule, however, has been subject to a nationwide preliminary injunction and, on December 29, 2021, CMS issued a final rule to rescind it. With issuance of this rule, CMS stated that it will explore all options to incorporate value into payments for Medicare Part B pharmaceuticals and improve beneficiaries' access to evidence-based care. In addition, in October 2020, HHS and the FDA published a final rule allowing states and other entities to develop a Section 804 Importation Program, or SIP, to import certain prescription drugs from Canada into the United States. That regulation was challenged in a lawsuit by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, but the case was dismissed by a federal district court in February 2023 after the court found that PhRMA did not have standing to sue HHS. Nine states (Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas, Vermont and Wisconsin) have passed laws allowing for the importation of drugs from Canada. Certain of these states have submitted Section 804 Importation Program proposals and are awaiting FDA approval. On January 5, 2023, the FDA approved Florida's plan for Canadian drug importation. Further, on November 20, 2020, HHS finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The final rule would eliminate the current safe harbor for Medicare drug rebates and create new safe harbors for beneficiary point-of-sale discounts and pharmacy benefit manager service fees. It originally was set to go into effect on January 1, 2022, but with passage of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, has been delayed by Congress to January 1, 2032. More recently, on August 16, 2022, the IRA was signed into law by the President of the United States. The new legislation has implications for Medicare Part D, which is a program available to individuals who are entitled to Medicare Part A or enrolled in Medicare Part B to give them the option of paying a monthly premium for outpatient prescription drug coverage. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare (beginning in 2026), with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (beginning in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. Specifically, with respect to price negotiations, Congress authorized Medicare to negotiate lower prices for certain costly single-source drug and biologic products that do not have competing generics or biosimilars and are reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Part D. CMS may negotiate prices for ten high-cost drugs paid for by Medicare Part D starting in 2026, followed by 15 Part D drugs in 2027, 15 Part B or Part D drugs in 2028, and 20 Part B or Part D drugs in 2029 and beyond. This provision applies to drug products that have been approved for at least nine years and biologics that have been licensed for 13 years, but it does not apply to drugs and biologics that have been approved for a single rare disease or condition. Nonetheless, since CMS may establish a maximum price for these products in price negotiations, we would be fully at risk of government action if our products are the subject of Medicare price negotiations. Moreover, given the risk that could be the case, these provisions of the IRA may also further heighten the risk that we would not be able to achieve the expected return on our drug products or full value of our patents protecting our products if prices are set after such products have been on the market for nine years. The legislation subjects drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax for failing to comply with the legislation by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated "maximum fair price" under the law or for taking price increases that exceed inflation. The legislation also requires manufacturers to pay rebates for drugs in Medicare Part D whose price increases exceed inflation. The new law also caps Medicare out-of-pocket drug costs at an estimated $4,000 a year in 2024 and, thereafter beginning in 2025, at $2,000 a year. In addition, the IRA potentially raises legal risks with respect to individuals participating in a Medicare Part D prescription drug plan who may experience a gap in coverage if they required coverage above their initial annual coverage limit before they reached the higher threshold, or "catastrophic period" of the plan. Individuals requiring services exceeding the initial annual coverage limit and below the catastrophic period, must pay 100% of the cost of their prescriptions until they reach the catastrophic period. Among other things, the IRA contains many provisions aimed at reducing this financial burden on individuals by reducing the co-insurance and co-payment costs, expanding eligibility for lower income subsidy plans, and placing price caps on annual out-of-pocket expenses, each of which could have potential pricing and reporting implications. On June 6, 2023, Merck & Co. filed a lawsuit against the HHS and CMS asserting that, among other things, the IRA's Drug Price Negotiation Program for Medicare constitutes an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Subsequently, a number of other parties, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, PhRMA, Astellas, Novo Nordisk, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, also filed lawsuits in various courts with similar constitutional claims against the HHS and CMS. We expect that litigation involving these and other provisions of the IRA will continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results. Accordingly, while it is currently unclear how the IRA will be effectuated, we cannot predict with certainty what impact any federal or state health reforms will have on us, but such changes could impose new or more stringent regulatory requirements on our activities or result in reduced reimbursement for our products, any of which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. While it is currently unclear how the IRA will be effectuated, we cannot predict with certainty what impact any federal or state health reforms will have on us, but such changes could impose new or more stringent regulatory requirements on our activities or result in reduced reimbursement for our products, any of which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. At the state level, individual states are increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing 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 addition, regional health care organizations and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other health care programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our drug product candidates or additional pricing pressures. In countries outside of the United States, particularly the countries of the European Union, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our drug product candidate to other available therapies. If reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our business could be harmed, possibly materially.

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our drug product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any drug product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. The pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and have been significantly affected by legislative initiatives. Current laws, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any FDA approved product. In the United States, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, or the MMA, changed the way Medicare covers and pays for pharmaceutical products. The legislation expanded Medicare coverage for drug purchases by the elderly and introduced a new reimbursement methodology based on average sales prices for physician-administered drugs. In addition, this legislation provided authority for limiting the number of drugs that will be covered in any therapeutic class. Cost reduction initiatives and other provisions of this legislation could decrease the coverage and price that we receive for any approved products. While the MMA applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates. Therefore, any reduction in reimbursement that results from the MMA may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. In March 2010, the PPACA was signed into law. In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the PPACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation's automatic reduction to several government programs. These changes included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and will remain in effect through 2031 pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or the CARES Act. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These new laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any of our drug product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used. Indeed, under current legislation, the actual reductions in Medicare payments may vary up to 4%. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, which was signed into law in December 2022, made several changes to sequestration of the Medicare program. Section 1001 of the Act delays the 4% Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, or PAYGO, sequester for two years, through the end of calendar year 2024. Triggered by enactment of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, the 4% cut to the Medicare program would have taken effect in January 2023. The Act's healthcare offset title includes Section 4163, which extends the 2% Budget Control Act of 2011 Medicare sequester for six months into fiscal year 2032 and lowers the payment reduction percentages in fiscal years 2030 and 2031. Since enactment of the PPACA, there have been, and continue to be, numerous legal challenges and Congressional actions to repeal and replace provisions of the law. For example, with enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, or the TCJA, Congress repealed the "individual mandate." The repeal of this provision, which requires most Americans to carry a minimal level of health insurance, became effective in 2019. Further, on June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed an action challenging the PPACA after finding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the law. Litigation and legislation over the PPACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results. The former administration also took executive actions to undermine or delay implementation of the PPACA, including directing federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the PPACA to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision of the PPACA that would impose a fiscal or regulatory burden on states, individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. On January 28, 2021, however, the current administration issued a new Executive Order which directs federal agencies to reconsider rules and other policies that limit Americans' access to health care and consider actions that will protect and strengthen that access. Under this Order, federal agencies are directed to re-examine: policies that undermine protections for people with pre-existing conditions, including complications related to COVID-19; demonstrations and waivers under Medicaid and the PPACA that may reduce coverage or undermine the programs, including work requirements; policies that undermine the Health Insurance Marketplace or other markets for health insurance; policies that make it more difficult to enroll in Medicaid and the PPACA; and policies that reduce affordability of coverage or financial assistance, including for dependents. This Executive Order also directs HHS to create a special enrollment period for the Health Insurance Marketplace in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The regulations relating to the promotion of products for unapproved uses are complex and subject to substantial interpretation by the FDA, EMA, MHRA and other government agencies. In September 2021, the FDA published final regulations which describe the types of evidence that the agency will consider in determining the intended use of a drug product. Physicians may nevertheless prescribe our products off-label to their patients in a manner that is inconsistent with the approved label. We intend to implement compliance and training programs designed to ensure that our sales and marketing practices comply with applicable regulations. Notwithstanding these programs, the FDA or other government agencies may allege or find that our practices constitute prohibited promotion of our products for unapproved uses. We also cannot be sure that our employees will comply with company policies and applicable regulations regarding the promotion of products for unapproved uses. Notwithstanding the regulatory restrictions on off-label promotion, the FDA and other regulatory authorities allow companies to engage in truthful, non-misleading, and non-promotional scientific communications concerning their products in certain circumstances. For example, in October 2023, the FDA published draft guidance outlining the agency's non-binding policies governing the distribution of scientific information on unapproved uses to healthcare providers. This draft guidance calls for such communications to be truthful, non-misleading, factual, and unbiased and include all information necessary for healthcare providers to interpret the strengths and weaknesses and validity and utility of the information about the unapproved use. In addition, under some relatively recent guidance from the FDA and the Pre-Approval Information Exchange Act, or PIE Act, signed into law as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, companies may also promote information that is consistent with the prescribing information and proactively speak to formulary committee members of payors regarding data for an unapproved drug or unapproved uses of an approved drug. We may engage in these discussions and communicate with healthcare providers, payors and other constituencies in compliance with all applicable laws, regulatory guidance and industry best practices. We will need to carefully navigate the FDA's various regulations, guidance and policies, along with recently enacted legislation, to ensure compliance with restrictions governing promotion of our products. In recent years, a significant number of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have been the target of inquiries and investigations by various federal and state regulatory, investigative, prosecutorial and administrative entities in connection with the promotion of products for unapproved uses and other sales practices, including the Department of Justice and various U.S. Attorneys' Offices, the Office of Inspector General of the HHS, the FDA, the Federal Trade Commission, or the FTC, and various state Attorneys General offices. These investigations have alleged violations of various federal and state laws and regulations, including claims asserting antitrust violations, violations of the FDCA, the False Claims Act, the Prescription Drug Marketing Act and anti-kickback laws and other alleged violations in connection with the promotion of products for unapproved uses, pricing and Medicare and/or Medicaid reimbursement. Many of these investigations originate as "qui tam" actions under the False Claims Act. Under the False Claims Act, any individual can bring a claim on behalf of the government alleging that a person or entity has presented a false claim or caused a false claim to be submitted to the government for payment. The person bringing a qui tam suit is entitled to a share of any recovery or settlement. Qui tam suits, also commonly referred to as "whistleblower suits," are often brought by current or former employees. In a qui tam suit, the government must decide whether to intervene and prosecute the case. If it declines, the individual may pursue the case alone. If the FDA or any other governmental agency initiates an enforcement action against us or if we are the subject of a qui tam suit and it is determined that we violated prohibitions relating to the promotion of products for unapproved uses, we could be subject to substantial civil or criminal fines or damage awards and other sanctions such as consent decrees and corporate integrity agreements pursuant to which our activities would be subject to ongoing scrutiny and monitoring to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Any such fines, awards or other sanctions would have an adverse effect on our revenue, business, financial prospects and reputation.

Any drug product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval will also be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements for labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, advertising, promotion, record-keeping and submission of safety and other post marketing information. For example, approved products, manufacturers and manufacturers' facilities are required to comply with extensive FDA requirements, including ensuring that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to cGMPs. As such, we and our contract manufacturers will be subject to continual review and periodic inspections to assess compliance with cGMPs. Accordingly, we and others with whom we work must continue to expend time, money and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production and quality control. We will also be required to report certain adverse reactions and production problems, if any, to the FDA and to comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotion for our products. In addition, even if marketing approval of a product candidate is granted, the approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the product may be marketed, may be subject to significant conditions of approval or may impose requirements for costly post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the product. The FDA may also require a REMS as a condition of approval of our drug product candidates, which could include requirements for a medication guide, physician communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. If a regulatory agency discovers previously unknown problems with a product, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facility where the product is manufactured, or disagrees with the promotion, marketing or labeling of a product, it may impose restrictions on that product or us. In addition, if any product fails to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, a regulatory agency may: - issue fines, warning letters, untitled letters or impose holds on clinical trials if any are still ongoing;- mandate modifications to promotional materials or require provision of corrective information to healthcare practitioners;- impose restrictions on the product or its manufacturers or manufacturing processes;- impose restrictions on the labeling or marketing of the product;- impose restrictions on product distribution or use;- require post-marketing clinical trials;- require withdrawal of the product from the market;- refuse to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications that we submit;- require recall of the product;- require entry into a consent decree, which can include imposition of various fines (including restitution or disgorgement of profits or revenue), reimbursements for inspection costs, required due dates for specific actions and penalties for non-compliance;- suspend or withdraw marketing approvals;- refuse to permit the import or export of the product;- seize or detain supplies of the product; or - issue injunctions or impose civil or criminal penalties. Finally, our ability to develop and market new drug products may be impacted by ongoing litigation challenging the FDA's approval of mifepristone. Specifically, on April 7, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas stayed the approval by the FDA of mifepristone, a drug product which was originally approved in 2000 and whose distribution is governed by various conditions adopted under a REMS. In reaching that decision, the district court made a number of findings that may negatively impact the development, approval and distribution of drug products in the U.S. Among other determinations, the district court held that plaintiffs were likely to prevail in their claim that FDA had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in approving mifepristone without sufficiently considering evidence bearing on whether the drug was safe to use under the conditions identified in its labeling. Further, the district court read the standing requirements governing litigation in federal court as permitting a plaintiff to bring a lawsuit against the FDA in connection with its decision to approve an NDA or establish requirements under a REMS based on a showing that the plaintiff or its members would be harmed to the extent that FDA's drug approval decision effectively compelled the plaintiffs to provide care for patients suffering adverse events caused by a given drug. On April 12, 2023, the district court decision was stayed, in part, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Thereafter, on April 21, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court entered a stay of the district court's decision, in its entirety, pending disposition of the appeal of the district court decision in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the disposition of any petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held oral argument in the case on May 17, 2023 and, on August 16, 2023, issued its decision. The court declined to order the removal of mifepristone from the market, finding that a challenge to the FDA's initial approval in 2000 is barred by the statute of limitations. But the Appeals Court did hold that plaintiffs were likely to prevail in their claim that changes allowing for expanded access of mifepristone that FDA authorized in 2016 and 2021 were arbitrary and capricious. On September 8, 2023, the Justice Department and a manufacturer of mifepristone filed petitions for a writ of certiorari, requesting that asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Appeals Court decision. On December 13, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court granted these petitions for writ of certiorari for the appeals court decision. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability. Further, any government investigation of alleged violations of law could require us to expend significant time and resources in response and could generate negative publicity. The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit our ability to commercialize any drug product candidates we develop and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Similar restrictions apply to the approval of our products in the EU. The holder of a marketing authorization is required to comply with a range of requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of medicinal products. These include: compliance with the EU's stringent pharmacovigilance or safety reporting rules, which can impose post-authorization studies and additional monitoring obligations; the manufacturing of authorized medicinal products, for which a separate manufacturer's license is mandatory; and the marketing and promotion of authorized drugs, which are strictly regulated in the EU and are also subject to EU Member State laws. The failure to comply with these and other EU requirements can also lead to significant penalties and sanctions.

Any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval, along with the manufacturing processes, post-approval clinical data, labeling, advertising, and promotional activities for such product, will be subject to continual requirements of and review by the FDA and other regulatory authorities. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration and listing requirements, GMP requirements relating to quality control, quality assurance and corresponding maintenance of records and documents, and requirements regarding the distribution of samples to physicians and recordkeeping. Even if marketing approval of a product candidate is granted, the approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for costly post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the product. Accordingly, assuming we, or any collaborators we may have, receive marketing approval for one or more of our drug product candidates, we, and such collaborators, and our and their contract manufacturers will continue to need to expend time, money, and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production, product surveillance, and quality control. If we and such collaborators are not able to comply with post-approval regulatory requirements, we and such collaborators could have the marketing approvals for our products withdrawn by regulatory authorities and our, or such collaborators', ability to market any future products could be limited, which could adversely affect our ability to generate revenue and achieve or sustain profitability. Further, the cost of compliance with post-approval regulations may have a negative effect on our business, operating results, financial condition, and prospects.

The number of preclinical and clinical tests that will be required for regulatory approval varies depending on the disease or condition to be treated, the method of treatment, the nature of the drug, the jurisdiction in which approval is sought and the applicable regulations. Regulatory agencies can delay, limit or deny approval of a product for many reasons. For example, regulatory agencies may: - not deem a product candidate to be safe or effective;- interpret data from preclinical and clinical testing differently than we do;- not approve the manufacturing processes;- conclude that our drug product candidate does not meet quality standards for durability, long-term reliability, biocompatibility, compatibility, or safety; and - change their approval policies or adopt new regulations. The FDA may make requests or suggestions regarding conduct of any clinical trials, resulting in an increased risk of difficulties or delays in obtaining regulatory approval in the United States. Foreign regulatory agencies may similarly have the ability to influence any clinical trials occurring outside the United States. Any of these occurrences could prove materially harmful to our operations and business.

The regulatory framework for the collection, use, safeguarding, sharing, transfer and other processing of information worldwide is rapidly evolving and is likely to remain uncertain for the foreseeable future. Globally, virtually every jurisdiction in which we operate has established its own data security and privacy frameworks with which we must comply. For example, the collection, use, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data regarding individuals in the European Union, including personal health data, is subject to the EU General Data Protection Regulation, or the GDPR, which took effect across all member states of the European Economic Area, or EEA, in May 2018. In the UK, the GDPR is retained in domestic law as the UK GDPR and sits alongside an amended version of the UK Data Protection Act of 2018. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, including requirements relating to processing health and other sensitive data, obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, providing notification of data breaches, and taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors. The GDPR increases our obligations with respect to clinical trials conducted in the EEA by expanding the definition of personal data to include coded data and requiring changes to informed consent practices and more detailed notices for clinical trial subjects and investigators. In addition, the GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the European Union, including the United States and, as a result, increases the scrutiny that clinical trial sites located in the EEA should apply to transfers of personal data from such sites to countries that are considered to lack an adequate level of data protection, such as the United States. The GDPR also permits data protection authorities to require destruction of improperly gathered or used personal information and/or impose substantial fines for violations of the GDPR, which can be up to four percent of global revenues of the respective group of companies or €20 million, whichever is greater, and it also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. In addition, the GDPR provides that European Union member states may make their own further laws and regulations limiting the processing of personal data, including genetic, biometric or health data. The GDPR places restrictions on the cross-border transfer of personal data from the EU to countries that have not been found by the European Commission to offer adequate data protection legislation. There are ongoing concerns about the ability of companies to transfer personal data from the EU to other countries. In July 2020, the Court of Justice of the EU, or the CJEU, invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, one of the mechanisms used to legitimize the transfer of personal data from the EEA to the U.S. The CJEU decision also drew into question the long-term viability of an alternative means of data transfer, the standard contractual clauses, for international transfers of personal data from the EEA. This CJEU decision resulted in increased scrutiny on data transfers and increased our costs of compliance with data privacy legislation as well as our costs of negotiating appropriate privacy and security agreements with our vendors and business partners. In October 2022, President Biden signed an executive order to implement the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, which serves as a replacement to the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield. The European Commission adopted the adequacy decision on July 10, 2023. The adequacy decision permits U.S. companies who self-certify to the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework to rely on it as a valid data transfer mechanism for data transfers from the EU to the U.S. However, some privacy advocacy groups have already suggested that they will be challenging the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework. If these challenges are successful, they may not only impact the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, but also further limit the viability of the standard contractual clauses and other data transfer mechanisms. The uncertainty around this issue has the potential to impact our business. Following the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, the UK Data Protection Act of 2018 applies to the processing of personal data that takes place in the UK and includes parallel obligations to those set forth by GDPR. In relation to data transfers, both the UK and the EU have determined, through separate "adequacy" decisions, that data transfers between the two jurisdictions are in compliance with the UK Data Protection Act of 2018 and the GDPR, respectively. The UK and the U.S. have also agreed to a U.S.-UK "Data Bridge", which functions similarly to the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and provides an additional legal mechanism for companies to transfer data from the UK to the U.S. In addition to the UK, Switzerland is also in the process of approving an adequacy decision in relation to the Swiss-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (which would function similarly to the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and the U.S.-UK Data Bridge in relation to data transfers from Switzerland to the U.S.). Any changes or updates to these developments have the potential to impact our business. Beyond GDPR, there are privacy and data security laws in a growing number of countries around the world. While many loosely follow GDPR as a model, other laws contain different or conflicting provisions. These laws will impact our ability to conduct our business activities, including both our clinical trials and the sale and distribution of commercial products, through increased compliance costs, costs associated with contracting and potential enforcement actions. While we continue to address the implications of the recent changes to data privacy regulations, data privacy remains an evolving landscape at both the domestic and international level, with new regulations coming into effect and continued legal challenges, and our efforts to comply with the evolving data protection rules may be unsuccessful. It is possible that these laws may be interpreted and applied in a manner that is inconsistent with our practices. We must devote significant resources to understanding and complying with this changing landscape. Failure to comply with laws regarding data protection would expose us to risk of enforcement actions taken by data protection authorities in the EEA and elsewhere and carries with it the potential for significant penalties if we are found to be non-compliant. Similarly, failure to comply with federal and state laws in the U.S. regarding privacy and security of personal information could expose us to penalties under such laws. Any such failure to comply with data protection and privacy laws could result in government-imposed fines or orders requiring that we change our practices, claims for damages or other liabilities, regulatory investigations and enforcement action, litigation and significant costs for remediation, any of which could adversely affect our business. Even if we are not determined to have violated these laws, government investigations into these issues typically require the expenditure of significant resources and generate negative publicity, which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

The HIPAA privacy, security and breach notification regulations, including the expanded requirements under HITECH, establish comprehensive federal standards with respect to the uses and disclosures of protected health information, or PHI, by health plans, healthcare providers and healthcare clearinghouses, in addition to setting standards to protect the confidentiality, integrity and security of PHI. The regulations establish a complex regulatory framework on a variety of subjects, including: - the circumstances under which uses and disclosures of PHI are permitted or required without a specific authorization by the patient, including but not limited to treatment purposes, activities to obtain payments for our services, and our healthcare operations activities;- a patient's rights to access, amend and receive an accounting of certain disclosures of PHI;- requirements to notify individuals if there is a breach of their PHI;- the contents of notices of privacy practices for PHI;- administrative, technical and physical safeguards required of entities that use or receive PHI; and - the protection of computing systems maintaining electronic PHI. We have implemented practices intended to meet the requirements of the HIPAA privacy, security and breach notification regulations, as required by law. We are required to comply with federal privacy, security and breach notification regulations as well as varying state privacy, security and breach notification laws and regulations, which may be more stringent than federal HIPAA requirements. In addition, for healthcare data transfers from other countries relating to citizens of those countries, we must comply with the laws of those countries. The federal privacy regulations restrict our ability to use or disclose patient identifiable data, without patient authorization, for purposes other than payment, treatment, healthcare operations and certain other specified disclosures such as public health and governmental oversight of the healthcare industry. HIPAA provides for significant fines and other penalties for wrongful use or disclosure of PHI, including potential civil and criminal fines and penalties. Computer networks are always vulnerable to breach and unauthorized persons may in the future be able to exploit weaknesses in the security systems of our computer networks and gain access to PHI. Additionally, we share PHI with third parties who are legally obligated to safeguard and maintain the confidentiality of PHI. Unauthorized persons may be able to gain access to PHI stored in such third-parties computer networks. Any wrongful use or disclosure of PHI by us or such third parties, including disclosure due to data theft or unauthorized access to our or our third-parties computer networks, could subject us to fines or penalties that could adversely affect our business and results of operations. Although the HIPAA statute and regulations do not expressly provide for a private right of damages, we could also incur damages under state laws to private parties for the wrongful use or disclosure of confidential health information or other private personal information.

In order to obtain marketing approval for any of our biologic drug product candidates, we must demonstrate the safety, purity, and efficacy of the product candidate for the relevant clinical indication or indications through preclinical studies and clinical trials as well as additional supporting data. If our drug product candidates are associated with undesirable side effects in preclinical studies or clinical trials or have characteristics that are unexpected, we may need to interrupt, delay or abandon their development or limit development to more narrow uses or subpopulations in which the undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective. We are conducting Phase 1 clinical trials for our lead product candidate, CUE-101, and a Phase 1 clinical trial for CUE-102, but otherwise we have not conducted any clinical trials. We have conducted various preclinical studies of our drug product candidates, but we do not know the predictive value of these studies for humans, and we cannot guarantee that any positive results in preclinical studies will successfully translate to human patients. It is not uncommon to observe results in human clinical trials that are unexpected based on preclinical testing, and many drug product candidates fail in clinical trials despite promising preclinical results. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their drug product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval for their products. Human patients in clinical trials may suffer significant adverse events or other side effects not observed in our preclinical studies, including, but not limited to, immunogenic responses, organ toxicities such as liver, heart or kidney or other tolerability issues or possibly even death. The observed potency and kinetics of our drug product candidates in preclinical studies may not be observed in human clinical trials. If clinical trials of our drug product candidates fail to demonstrate efficacy to the satisfaction of regulatory authorities or do not otherwise produce positive results, we may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of our drug product candidates. If significant adverse events or other side effects are observed in any of our current or future clinical trials, we may have difficulty recruiting patients to the clinical trial, patients may drop out of our trial, or we may be required to abandon the trial or our development efforts of that product candidate altogether. We, the FDA or other applicable regulatory authorities, or an Institutional Review Board may suspend clinical trials of a product candidate at any time for various reasons, including a belief that subjects in such trials are being exposed to unacceptable health risks or adverse side effects. Some potential therapeutics developed in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries that initially showed therapeutic promise in early-stage studies have later been found to cause side effects that prevented their further development. Even if the side effects do not preclude the drug from obtaining or maintaining marketing approval, undesirable side effects may inhibit market acceptance of the approved product due to its tolerability as compared to other therapies. Any of these developments could materially harm our business, financial condition and prospects. Further, if any of our drug product candidates obtains marketing approval, toxicities associated with our drug product candidates may also develop after such approval and lead to a requirement to conduct additional clinical safety trials, additional warnings being added to the labeling, significant restrictions on the use of the product or the withdrawal of the product from the market. We cannot predict whether our drug product candidates will cause toxicities in humans that would preclude or lead to the revocation of regulatory approval based on preclinical studies or clinical testing. However, any such event, were it to occur, would cause substantial harm to our business and financial condition and would result in the diversion of our management's attention.

Our operations to date have been limited to financing and staffing our company, conducting research and developing our core technologies, and identifying and optimizing our lead product clinical candidates. Additionally, we have conducted limited clinical testing of two of our drug product candidates. Although we have recruited a team that has experience with clinical trials in the United States, as a company, we have limited experience conducting clinical trials and have not had previous experience commercializing drug product candidates or submitting a Biologic License Application, or BLA, to the FDA or similar submissions to initiate clinical trials or obtain marketing authorization to foreign regulatory authorities. We cannot be certain that current or planned clinical trials will begin or be completed on time, if at all, or that our planned development programs would be acceptable to the FDA or other regulatory authorities, or that, if regulatory approval is obtained, our drug product candidates can be successfully commercialized. Clinical trials and commercializing our drug product candidates will require significant additional financial and management resources, and reliance on third-party clinical investigators, contract research organizations, or CROs, contract manufacturing organization, or CMOs, consultants and collaborators. Relying on third-party clinical investigators, CROs, CMOs or collaborators may result in delays that are outside of our control. Furthermore, we may not have the financial resources to continue development of, or to enter into collaborations for, a product candidate if we experience any problems or other unforeseen events that delay or prevent regulatory approval of, or our ability to commercialize, drug product candidates, including: - negative or inconclusive results from our IND-enabling studies, clinical trials or the clinical trials of other drug product candidates similar to ours, leading to a decision or requirement to conduct additional preclinical testing or clinical trials or abandon a program;- delays in submitting INDs or comparable foreign applications or delays or failure in obtaining the necessary approvals from regulators to commence a clinical trial, or a suspension or termination of a clinical trial once commenced;- conditions imposed by the FDA or a foreign regulatory authority regarding the number, scope or design of our clinical trials;- delays in enrolling patients in clinical trials;- high drop-out rates of patients;- inadequate supply or quality of clinical trial materials or other supplies necessary to conduct our clinical trials;- greater than anticipated clinical trial costs;- poor effectiveness or unacceptable side effects of our drug product candidates during clinical trials;- unfavorable FDA or other regulatory agency inspection and review of a clinical trial site;- difficulty in establishing or managing relationships with CROs, CMOs, and clinical investigators;- failure of our third-party contractors or investigators to comply with regulatory requirements or otherwise meet their contractual obligations in a timely manner, or at all;- serious and unexpected drug-related side effects or other safety issues experienced by participants in our clinical trials or by individuals using drugs similar to our drug product candidates;- delays and changes in regulatory requirements, policy and guidelines, including the imposition of additional regulatory oversight around clinical testing generally or with respect to our technology in particular; or - varying interpretations of data by the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities. In addition, policies of the FDA and other regulatory authorities with respect to clinical trials may change and additional government regulations may be enacted. For example, in December 2022, with the passage of the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act, or FDORA, Congress required sponsors to develop and submit a diversity action plan for each Phase 3 clinical trial or any other "pivotal study" of a new drug or biological product. These plans are meant to encourage the enrollment of more diverse patient populations in late-stage clinical trials of FDA-regulated products. Specifically, action plans must include the sponsor's goals for enrollment, the underlying rationale for those goals, and an explanation of how the sponsor intends to meet them. In addition to these requirements, the legislation directs the FDA to issue new guidance on diversity action plans. Similarly, the regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the EU recently evolved. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation, or CTR, which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive, became applicable on January 31, 2022. While the Clinical Trials Directive required a separate clinical trial application, or CTA, to be submitted in each member state, to both the competent national health authority and an independent ethics committee, the CTR introduces a centralized process and only requires the submission of a single application to all member states concerned. The CTR allows sponsors to make a single submission to both the competent authority and an ethics committee in each member state, leading to a single decision per member state. The assessment procedure of the CTA has been harmonized as well, including a joint assessment by all member states concerned, and a separate assessment by each member state with respect to specific requirements related to its own territory, including ethics rules. Each member state's decision is communicated to the sponsor via the centralized EU portal. Once the CTA is approved, clinical study development may proceed. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies governing clinical trials, our development plans may be impacted.

Our main focus and the investment of a significant portion of our efforts and financial resources has been in the development of our lead product candidate, CUE-101, for which we are currently actively conducting Phase 1 clinical trials and CUE-102, for which we are currently actively conducting a Phase 1 clinical trial. Our other drug product candidates are all at a preclinical stage. In the first quarter of 2022, we determined to prioritize and strategically focus on our CUE-101 and CUE-102 oncology programs in our CUE-100 series. We expect that additional trials of CUE-101 and CUE-102 will be required in order to gain approval by the FDA. Therefore, significant additional research and development activity and clinical testing are required before we and our collaborators will have a chance to achieve a commercially viable product from CUE-101, CUE-102 or our other drug product candidates. Our research and development efforts remain subject to all of the risks associated with the development of new biopharmaceutical products and treatments based on immune modulation. Development of the underlying technology may be affected by unanticipated technical or other problems, among other research and development issues, and the possible insufficiency of funds needed in order to complete development of these drug product candidates. Safety, regulatory and efficacy issues, clinical hurdles or other challenges may result in delays and cause us to incur additional expenses that would increase our losses. If we and our collaborators cannot complete, or if we experience significant delays in developing, our potential drug product candidates or products for use in potential commercial applications, particularly after incurring significant expenditures, our business may fail and investors may lose the entirety of their investment.

We currently do not have any products approved by the FDA or any other regulatory agency or any commercialized products and thus have never generated commercial revenue from product sales. We have not yet sought to obtain any regulatory approvals for any drug product candidates in the United States or any foreign market. Therefore, any estimated timing for our drug product candidates to be commercialized would be highly speculative. To date, we have invested substantial resources in an exclusive license with Einstein that forms the foundation for our drug product candidates and potential applications. For us to develop any products that might ultimately be commercialized, we will have to invest further time and capital in research and product development, regulatory compliance and market development. We and our licensor, prospective business partners and other collaborators may never develop any products that can be commercialized. All of our development efforts will require substantial additional funding, none of which may result in any commercial revenue. Our efforts may not lead to commercially successful products for a number of reasons, including: - we and our licensor, prospective business partners and other collaborators may not be able to complete research regarding, and nonclinical and clinical development of, our drug product candidates;- regulatory approvals and marketing authorizations may not be achieved for our drug product candidates, or the scope of the approved indication may be narrower than sought;- we and our licensor, prospective business partners and other collaborators may experience delays in our development programs, clinical trials and the regulatory approval process;- our technology may not prove to be safe and effective in clinical trials or preclinical studies and our drug product candidates may have adverse side effects which outweigh any potential benefit to patients;- we may not be able to identify suitable collaborators to complete development or commercialization of our potential products;- we may not be able to maintain, protect or expand our portfolio of intellectual property rights, including patents, trade secrets and know-how;- any future products that are ultimately approved by the FDA or other regulatory bodies may not be commercially accepted in the marketplace by physicians or patients;- any future products that are ultimately approved by the FDA or other regulatory bodies may not be able to be manufactured in commercial quantities or at an acceptable cost;- physicians may not receive any reimbursement from third-party payors, or the level of reimbursement may be insufficient to support widespread adoption of any of our future products once approved by the FDA or other regulatory bodies; and - rapid technological change may make our technology and drug product candidates obsolete. Moreover, in the first quarter of 2022, we determined to prioritize and strategically focus on our CUE-101 and CUE-102 oncology programs in our CUE-100 series. We are actively seeking third party support through partnerships and collaborations, or alternative funding structures, to further develop CUE-103 and our Neo-STAT and RDI-STAT programs, as well as our programs outside of oncology, including our CUE-200, CUE-300 and CUE-400 series, and there is no guarantee that we will be able to do so on favorable terms or at all.

We aim to benefit from the FDA's fast track, breakthrough therapy and priority review programs. However, our drug product candidates may not receive an FDA fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, or priority review. Without fast track designation, submitting a BLA, and getting through the regulatory process to gain marketing approval is a lengthy process. Under fast track designation, the FDA may initiate 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. On October 3, 2022, we received fast track designation for CUE-101 for the treatment of R/M HPV+ HNSCC as a monotherapy and in combination with KEYTRUDA. The FDA has also established breakthrough therapy designation, which is for a product that is intended, either alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The FDA may take certain actions with respect to breakthrough therapies, including holding meetings with the sponsor throughout the development process; providing timely advice to the sponsor regarding development and approval; involving more senior staff in the review process; assigning a cross-disciplinary project lead for the review team; and taking other steps to design the clinical trials in an efficient manner. We may seek breakthrough therapy designation for one or more of our drug product candidates, but there can be no assurance that we will receive such designation. Under the FDA's policies, a product 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 product candidate provides a significant improvement compared to marketed drugs in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a disease. A fast track or breakthrough therapy designated drug product candidate would ordinarily meet the FDA's criteria for priority review. The FDA has broad discretion with respect to whether or not to grant these designations to a product candidate, so even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for such designation or status, the FDA may decide not to grant it. Moreover, any such designation does not necessarily mean a faster regulatory review process or necessarily confer any advantage with respect to licensure compared to conventional FDA procedures. As a result, while we may seek and receive these designations for our drug product candidates, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. In addition, the FDA may withdraw these designations if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. A delay in the review process or in the approval of our potential products would delay revenue, if any, from their potential sales and would increase the capital necessary to fund these product development programs. We are also currently participating in Project Optimus, an initiative of the Oncology Center of Excellence at the FDA. This project focuses on dose optimization and dose selection in oncology drug development, and whether the current paradigm based on cytotoxic chemotherapeutics leads to doses and schedules of molecularly targeted therapies that provide more toxicity without additional efficacy, among other things. By participating in Project Optimus, we have the opportunity to meet with the FDA's Oncology Review Divisions early in our development programs, well before conducting trials intended for registration, to discuss dose-finding and dose optimization. The program thus allows us to develop strategies for dose finding and dose optimization that leverages nonclinical and clinical data in dose selection, including randomized evaluations of a range of doses in trials, with the objective of performing these studies as early as possible in the development program to bring promising new therapies to patients. There is no assurance, however, that our involvement in this program will lead to early discussions with the FDA or expedited studies leading to optimization of dose selection for our candidate products.

In the first quarter of 2022, we decided to strategically focus on our CUE-101 and CUE-102 oncology programs in our CUE-100 series. We are actively seeking third party support through partnerships and collaborations, or alternative funding structures, to further develop CUE-103 and our Neo-STAT and RDI-STAT programs outside of oncology, including our CUE-200, CUE-300 and CUE-400 series, and there is no guarantee that we will be able to do so on favorable terms or at all. Although we may explore other therapeutic opportunities, in addition to the drug product candidates that we are currently developing, we may fail to identify successful drug product candidates for clinical development for a number of reasons. If we fail to identify additional potential drug product candidates, our business could be materially harmed. Research programs to pursue the development of our drug product candidates for additional indications and to identify new drug product candidates and disease targets require substantial technical, financial and human resources whether or not they are ultimately successful. Our research programs may initially show promise in identifying potential indications and/or drug product candidates, yet fail to yield results for clinical development for a number of reasons, including: - the research methodology used may not be successful in identifying potential indications and/or drug product candidates;- our key platform technology, Immuno-STAT Biologics™, may not adequately enable us to design, discover and validate drug product candidates;- potential drug product candidates may, after further study, be shown to have harmful adverse effects or other characteristics that indicate they are unlikely to be effective drugs; or - it may take greater human and financial resources than we possess to identify additional therapeutic opportunities for our drug product candidates or to develop suitable potential drug product candidates through internal research programs, thereby limiting our ability to develop, diversify and expand our drug portfolio. Because we have limited financial and human resources, we intend to initially focus on research programs and drug product candidates for a limited set of indications. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other drug product candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential or a greater likelihood of success. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that we will ever be able to identify additional therapeutic opportunities for our drug product candidates or to develop suitable potential drug product candidates through internal research programs, which could materially adversely affect our future growth and prospects. We may focus our efforts and resources on potential drug product candidates or other potential programs that ultimately prove to be unsuccessful.

We may in the future conduct one or more of our clinical trials with trial sites that are located outside the United States. Although the FDA may accept data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States, acceptance of these data is subject to certain conditions imposed by the FDA. For example, the clinical trial must be well designed and conducted and performed by qualified investigators in accordance with good clinical practice. The FDA must be able to validate the data from the trial through an onsite inspection if necessary. The trial population must also have a similar profile to the U.S. population, and the data must be applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice in ways that the FDA deems clinically meaningful, except to the extent the disease being studied does not typically occur in the United States. In addition, while these clinical trials are subject to the applicable local laws, the FDA acceptance of the data will be dependent upon its determination that the trials also complied with all applicable U.S. laws and regulations. There can be no assurance that the FDA will accept data from clinical trials conducted outside of the United States. If the FDA does not accept the data from any trial that we conduct outside the United States, it would likely result in the need for additional trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and delay or permanently halt our development of our drug product candidates. In addition, the conduct of clinical trials outside the United States could have a significant adverse impact on us or the trial results. Risks inherent in conducting international clinical trials include: - clinical practice patterns and standards of care that vary widely among countries;- non-U.S. regulatory authority requirements that could restrict or limit our ability to conduct our clinical trials;- administrative burdens of conducting clinical trials under multiple non-U.S. regulatory authority schema;- foreign exchange rate fluctuations; and - diminished protection of intellectual property in some countries.

If we are the target of claims by third parties asserting that our potential products or intellectual property infringe upon the rights of others, we may be forced to incur substantial expenses or divert substantial employee resources from our business. If successful, those claims could result in our having to pay substantial damages or could prevent us from developing one or more drug product candidates. Further, if a patent infringement suit is brought against us or our collaborators, we or they could be forced to stop or delay research, development, manufacturing or sales of the product or product candidate that is the subject of the suit. If we or our collaborators experience patent infringement claims, or if we elect to avoid potential claims others may be able to assert, we or our collaborators may choose to seek, or be required to seek, a license from the third party and would most likely be required to pay license fees or royalties or both. These licenses may not be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Even if we or our collaborators were able to obtain a license, the rights may be nonexclusive, which would give our competitors access to the same intellectual property. Ultimately, we could be prevented from commercializing a product, or be forced to cease some aspect of our business operations if, as a result of actual or threatened patent infringement claims, we or our collaborators are unable to enter into license agreements on acceptable terms or at all. This could harm our business significantly. The cost to us of any litigation or other proceeding, regardless of its merit, and even if resolved in our favor, could be substantial. Some of our competitors may be able to bear the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their having greater financial and human resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace. Intellectual property litigation and other proceedings may, regardless of their merit, also absorb significant management time and employee resources. Although we are not currently aware of any litigation or other proceedings or third-party claims of intellectual property infringement, the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by many suits regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. Other parties may in the future allege that our activities infringe upon their patents or that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. We may not have identified all the patents, patent applications or published literature that affect our business either by blocking our ability to commercialize our potential products, by preventing the patentability of one or more aspects of our potential products or those of our licensor or by covering the same or similar technologies that may affect our ability to market our potential products. In addition, even in the absence of litigation, we may need to obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of our drug product candidates, and we have done so from time to time. We may fail to obtain future licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In that event, we may be unable to further develop and commercialize one or more of our drug product candidates, which could harm our business significantly. Some intellectual property that we have in-licensed may have been discovered through government funded programs and thus may be subject to federal regulations such as "march-in" rights, certain reporting requirements and a preference for U.S.-based companies. Compliance with such regulations may limit our exclusive rights and limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. manufacturers. The majority of the intellectual property rights we have licensed are generated through the use of U.S. government funding and are therefore subject to certain federal regulations. As a result, the U.S. government may have certain rights to intellectual property embodied in our current or future drug product candidates pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, or Bayh-Dole Act. These U.S. government rights in certain inventions developed under a government-funded program include a non-exclusive, non-transferable, irrevocable worldwide license to use inventions for any governmental purpose. In addition, the U.S. government has the right to require us to grant exclusive, partially exclusive, or non-exclusive licenses to any of these inventions to a third party if it determines that: (i) adequate steps have not been taken to commercialize the invention; (ii) government action is necessary to meet public health or safety needs; or (iii) government action is necessary to meet requirements for public use under federal regulations (also referred to as "march-in rights"). The U.S. government also has the right to take title to these inventions if we, or the applicable licensor, fail to disclose the invention to the government and fail to file an application to register the intellectual property within specified time limits. Intellectual property generated under a government funded program is also subject to certain reporting requirements, compliance with which may require us or the applicable licensor to expend substantial resources. In addition, the U.S. government requires that any products embodying the subject invention or produced through the use of the subject invention be manufactured substantially in the United States. The manufacturing preference requirement can be waived if the owner of the intellectual property can show that reasonable but unsuccessful efforts have been made to grant licenses on similar terms to potential licensees that would be likely to manufacture substantially in the United States or that under the circumstances domestic manufacture is not commercially feasible. This preference for U.S. manufacturers may limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. product manufacturers for products covered by such intellectual property. To the extent any of our current or future intellectual property is generated through the use of U.S. government funding, the provisions of the Bayh-Dole Act may similarly apply.

The strength of our anticipated patents will involve complex legal and scientific matters and can be uncertain. As described above under "Business – Our Intellectual Property," we own or license a number of pending patent applications. Our anticipated patents may be challenged or fail to result in issued patents and anticipated patents may be too specific and narrowly construed to prevent third parties from developing or designing around the protections provided by our intellectual property and in that event we may lose competitive advantage and our business may suffer. Further, the patent and patent applications that we license or have filed may fail to result in issued patents or the claims may need to be amended. Even after amendment, a patent may not issue. In that event, we may not obtain the exclusive use of the intellectual property that we seek, and we may lose competitive advantage, which could result in harm to our business.

We hold an exclusive license from Einstein to intellectual property relating to certain patent rights, relating to our core technology platform for the engineering of biologics to control T cell activity, precision, immune-modulatory drug product candidates, and two supporting technologies that enable the discovery of costimulatory signaling molecules (ligands) and T cell targeting peptides. This license imposes various developmental milestone obligations on us. If we fail to comply with any obligations under the license agreement and fail to cure such noncompliance, Einstein will have the right to terminate the agreement and our license. The existing patent applications or future patents to which we have rights based on our agreements with Einstein may be too specific and narrowly construed to prevent third parties from developing or designing around the protection provided by these patents. Additionally, we may lose our rights to the patents and patent applications we license in the event of termination of the license agreement. There is no assurance that we will be successful in meeting all of the milestones in the future on a timely basis or that this license agreement will not be terminated for other reasons, depriving us of significant rights. The termination of this license agreement would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

In addition to our licensed technology, we rely, and will continue to rely, upon, among other things, unpatented proprietary technology, processes, trade secrets, trademarks, and know-how. Any involuntary disclosure to or misappropriation by third parties of our confidential or proprietary information could enable competitors to duplicate or surpass our technological achievements, potentially eroding our competitive position in our market. We seek to protect confidential or proprietary information in part by confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants and third parties. While we require all of our employees, consultants, advisors and any third parties who have access to our proprietary know-how, information and technology to enter into confidentiality agreements, we cannot be certain that this know-how, information and technology will not be disclosed or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. These agreements may be terminated or breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any such termination or breach. Furthermore, these agreements may not provide meaningful protection for our trade secrets and know-how in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure. To the extent that any of our staff was previously employed by other pharmaceutical, medical technology or biotechnology companies, those employers may allege violations of trade secrets and other similar claims in relation to their former employee's therapeutic development activities for us. Any dispute involving such employees may result in liabilities to us.

We rely completely on third parties to manufacture clinical drug supplies for our drug product candidates. If we were to experience an unexpected loss of supply of our drug product candidates for any reason, whether as a result of manufacturing, supply or storage issues or otherwise, we could experience disruptions in supply or delays, suspensions or terminations of clinical trials or regulatory submissions. We do not currently have nor do we plan to acquire the infrastructure or capability internally to manufacture our preclinical and clinical drug supplies and we lack the resources and the capability to manufacture any of our drug product candidates on a clinical or commercial scale. The facilities used by our contract manufacturers or other third-party manufacturers to manufacture our drug product candidates, including Catalent and Ajinomoto, must obtain and maintain approval by the FDA. While we work closely with our third-party manufacturers on the manufacturing process for our drug product candidates, including quality audits, we generally do not control the implementation of the manufacturing process of, and are completely dependent on, our contract manufacturers or other third-party manufacturers for compliance with GMP regulatory requirements and for manufacture of both active drug substances and finished drug products. If our contract manufacturers or other third-party manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to applicable specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or others, they will not be able to secure and/or maintain regulatory approval for their manufacturing facilities and we may not have sufficient access to supplies, which could significantly and adversely affect our operations. In addition, we have no control over the ability of our contract manufacturers or other third-party manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve, or withdraws approval for, these facilities for the manufacture of our products and drug product candidates, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to commercialize, develop, or obtain or maintain regulatory approval for our products and drug product candidates. We also rely on our manufacturers to purchase from third-party suppliers the materials necessary to produce our drug product candidates for our clinical trials. There are a limited number of suppliers for raw materials that we use to manufacture our products and drug product candidates and we may need to assess alternate suppliers to prevent a possible disruption of the manufacture of the materials necessary to produce our drug product candidates for our clinical trials. We do not have any control over the process or timing of the acquisition of these raw materials by our manufacturers. Moreover, we currently do not have any agreements for the commercial production of these raw materials. Although we generally do not begin a clinical trial unless we believe we have a sufficient supply of a product candidate to complete the clinical trial, any significant delay in the supply of a product candidate, or the raw material components thereof, for an ongoing clinical trial due to the need to replace a contract manufacturer or other third-party manufacturer could considerably delay completion of our clinical trials, product testing and potential regulatory approval of our drug product candidates. Reliance on third-party manufacturers entails additional risks, including the possible breach of manufacturing agreements by the third party, the possible misappropriation of our proprietary information and the possible termination or non-renewal of an agreement by a third party at a time that is costly or inconvenient for us. We expect to continue to depend on contract manufacturers or other third-party manufacturers for the foreseeable future. We may, however, be unable to enter into agreements or do so on commercially reasonable terms for potential future drug product candidates, which could have a material adverse impact upon our business.