UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

Commission File No. 001-41231

TC BIOPHARM (HOLDINGS) PLC

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

+44 (0) 141 433 7557

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. Yes ☐ No ☒

If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). ☐

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

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting ordinary shares held by non-affiliates of the registrant, based upon $10.84, the closing price of the registrant’s American Depositary Shares on the Nasdaq Capital Market on June 30, 2023 (the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter) was approximately $3.1 million.

As of March 29, 2024, 63,902,641 shares of the registrant’s ordinary shares, £0.0001 par value per share representing 2,426,504 American Depository shares, were outstanding.

TC BIOPHARM (HOLDINGS) PLC

2023 ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Unless we state otherwise or the context otherwise requires, the terms “TC Biopharm,”, “TCB”, “we,” “us,” “our” and the “Company” refer to TC Biopharm (Holdings) plc.

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K, or Annual Report, contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. We make such forward-looking statements pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and other federal securities laws. All statements other than statements of historical facts contained in this Annual Report are forward-looking statements. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may”, “will”, “should”, “expects”, “intends”, “plans”, “anticipates”, “believes”, “estimates”, “predicts”, “potential”, “continue” or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology.

Forward-looking statements are neither historical facts nor assurances of future performance, and are based only on our current beliefs, expectations and assumptions regarding the future of our business, future plans and strategies, projections, anticipated events and trends, the economy and other future conditions. Because forward-looking statements relate to the future, they are subject to inherent uncertainties, risks and changes in circumstances that are difficult to predict and many of which are outside of our control. Therefore, you should not rely on any of these forward-looking statements. Important factors that could cause our actual results and financial condition to differ materially from those indicated in the forward-looking statements include, among others, the following:

These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this Form 10-K and are subject to business and economic risks. We do not undertake any obligation to update or revise the forward-looking statements to reflect events that occur or circumstances that exist after the date on which such statements were made, except to the extent required by law.

PART I

Overview

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing novel immunotherapy products based on our proprietary allogeneic gamma delta T (GD-T) cell platform. Harnessing the innate ability of GD-Ts has enabled us to develop a range of clinical-stage cell therapies designed to combat cancer and viral infection.

In-house clinical studies have demonstrated that our unmodified allogeneic GD-T products are (i) well tolerated and (ii) show preliminary evidence of disease modification in patients with the late-stage blood cancer, known as acute myeloid leukemia – AML. Based on clinical data generated by us believe that unmodified GD-Ts have the potential to treat all blood cancers.

TCB now is embarking on phase 2b-into-pivotal (phase 3) clinical studies with a view to launching its first oncology product for the treatment of AML. Clinical results generated thus far have enabled us to obtain FDA orphan drug status for treatment of AML.

In addition to unmodified allogenic GD-Ts for treatment of blood cancers, we are also developing an innovative range of genetically-modified CAR-T products for treatment of solid cancers. We believe that solid cancers are more difficult to treat than blood cancers and may require the addition of a CAR “chimeric antigen receptor” (i) to help therapeutic cells to “navigate” into diseased cancerous tissue and (ii) to retain therapeutic cells in-situ at the lesion for maximal efficacy (increased persistence).

In order to manufacture our portfolio of allogeneic products, we select the highest quality GD-T cells from healthy donors, activate the cells and grow them in large numbers at our in-house GMP-compliant manufacturing facility before administration to a patient in order to target and then destroy malignant or virally-infected tissues. We believe that we have introduced a step-change to our manufacturing platform by implementing a freeze-thaw process that will allow product to be shipped from cleanroom to patient without any shelf-life issue. Resulting products, we believe, will be more cost-effective and straightforward to ship form cleanroom to clinic.

History and Development of the Company

We are a public company with limited liability incorporated on October 25, 2021, pursuant to the laws of Scotland, under the name TC BioPharm (Holdings) plc. We were incorporated with nominal share capital for the purpose of becoming the ultimate holding company of TC BioPharm Limited, the company in which our principal clinical, research and development operations have been and are currently undertaken, and for the purpose of consummating the corporate reorganization described herein. TC BioPharm (Holdings) plc will not conduct any operations except those as the listed entity, as explained below.

TC BioPharm Limited was incorporated on July 1, 2013, as a private company with limited liability pursuant to the laws of Scotland and conducts our principal clinical. research and development operations. TC BioPharm Limited has two wholly owned subsidiaries:

These two subsidiaries have had limited operating activity since their incorporation. It is anticipated that TC BioPharm (North America) Inc. will develop operations and a management presence in the United States, with a view to expanding our product offerings into that jurisdiction in the future.

The corporate reorganization took place in several steps as follows:

On November 18, 2022 the Company undertook a reverse share split such that fifty issued ordinary shares were exchanged for one new ordinary share. As a result of the share split, all references in these consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes to units of ordinary shares or per share amounts are reflective of the reverse share split for all periods presented. In addition, the exercise prices and the numbers of ordinary shares issuable upon the exercise of any outstanding options to purchase ordinary shares were proportionally adjusted pursuant to the respective anti-dilution terms of the share-based payment plans.

On December 15, 2023 the Company changed its ratio of ADSs to one ADS representing one ordinary share to one ADS representing 20 ordinary shares. As a result of the ratio change, all references to ADSs in these consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes to units of ADSs or per ADS amounts are reflective of the ratio change for all periods presented. In addition, the exercise prices and the numbers of ADSs issuable upon the exercise of any outstanding options to purchase ADSs were proportionally adjusted pursuant to the respective anti-dilution terms of the share-based payment plans.

Our agent for service of process in the United States is TC BioPharm (North America) Inc., c/o Business Filings, Inc., 108 West 13th Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801 and the telephone number is (800) 981-7183.

Our capital expenditures for the years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022 were £0.1 million and £0.2 million, respectively. These capital expenditures primarily consisted of property, plant and equipment, computer equipment and office equipment in the United Kingdom.

The SEC maintains an Internet site that contains reports, proxy information statements and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC. The address of that site is http://www.sec.gov. Our website address is www.tcbiopharm.com. Information contained in, or that can be accessed through, our website is not a part of, and shall not be incorporated by reference into, this document. We have included our website address in this document solely as an inactive textual reference.

Business Strategy

We have taken a step-wise approach to clinical development and commercialization. To achieve this, we have made the clinical transition from autologous GD-Ts to allogeneic GD-Ts to CAR-modified allogeneic GD-Ts. Our commercialization strategy is to introduce products firstly in blood cancers (AML initially) and then solid tumor indications.

Our strategic objective is to build a global therapeutic business with an extensive portfolio of GD-T cell-based products with the potential to significantly improve the outcomes of patients with cancer and infectious disease. In order to achieve our objective, we are focused on delivering success in the following areas:

Progress unmodified GD-T2s into Phase 2/3 clinical trials for the treatment of blood cancers

Having generated meaningful clinical data showing our product is well-tolerated in late-stage AML patients with no remaining treatment options, we commenced phase 2b-into pivotal (phase 3) clinical studies under the trial name ‘ACHIEVE’, with OmnImmune® during 2022 in AML patients who have failed to respond adequately to induction therapy. The aim is to provide a form of salvage therapy which will either stabilize the patient, thereby preventing disease progression, or delay the requirement for human stem cell transplant. Our initial trial centers are in the UK and we are currently dosing patients in this trial. Working on the premise that other blood cancers should respond to GD-Ts in a similar manner to AML, TCB plans to conduct clinical studies for OmnImmune® in other hematological malignancies in future.

OmnImmune® clinical program

Our OmnImmune® clinical program is an example of our stepwise approach to clinical development. The initial phase 1b/2a trials were undertaken using fresh cell-based product under the program number TCB002. For ease of reference, when discussing that specific trial, we refer the program as OmnImmune® (TCB002). The phase 2b-into pivotal (phase 3) clinical studies are using a frozen cell-based product under the program number TCB008-001. When discussing that specific trial, we refer the program as OmnImmune® (TCB008-001).

Unmodified GD-T2s for use in the treatment of infectious disease

Gamma-delta T cells are dysfunctional in patients with many severe viral diseases and TCB anticipates that its unmodified gamma delta T cell therapy platform will be used in due course to treat viral infections as well as cancers under the name ImmuniStim®. For example, during 2022 TCB developed a clinical trial protocol to treat patients with COVID 19. Because of the progress of the disease and absence of appropriate trial patients this trial is not currently being progressed, although we expect to continue our infectious disease program in future.

Progress CAR-modified GD-Ts into Phase 1 clinical trials for treatment of solid tumors

TCB aims to treat solid cancers using its patented co-stimulatory GD-T and is currently undergoing pre-clinical work to determine the most appropriate CAR construct and target indication.

Grow our business operations to support the increasing number of clinical-phase products in development

We believe that our existing cell and gene manufacturing facility in the UK has the capacity to support our committed clinical development plans. We plan to continue to build upon this to support expansion of our product pipelines to new assets and to grow our clinical team. We also will work closely with vendors to embrace emerging technologies in our manufacturing operations that are appropriate and optimized for our products to continually improve the quality and efficiency of our manufacturing systems. We believe that maintaining in-house control of these activities is critical to effective and efficient progression and we will continue to seek to build integrated business functions where possible.

Apply our discovery engine to target further diseases and add additional functionality to our products

As a platform technology, our co-stimulatory CAR-T GD-T cell system has a wealth of potential options to build added functionality into our cell-based platform. We plan to continue to innovate and partner in the field to augment our drug products and introduce next generation attributes. We also plan to continue to innovate our manufacturing and supply chains to efficiently scale our processes and simplify the interface with patients and healthcare professionals, whilst continually seeking to reduce manufacturing costs to improve patient access.

Expand our intellectual property portfolio and acquire additional technologies to augment our strong IP position

We intend to continue building on our technology platform, comprised of intellectual property, proprietary methods and know-how in the field of GD-T cells. These assets form the foundation for our ability, not only to strengthen our product pipeline, but also to successfully defend and expand our position as a leader in the field of GD-T based immune-oncology.

Our Pipeline

What are gamma delta T cells?

The immune system plays an important role in targeting and destroying cancer cells. One component has evolved to scan the body for diseased cells and eradicate them. In humans, GD-Ts arise as a number of different subtypes, defined by the sequence of the gamma and delta chains of the T-cell receptor (TCR) on the cell surface. The gammadelta2 (GD-T2) subtype typically is the most abundant of these cells in healthy humans, and its TCR- of anti-cancer immunity is GD-T cells – a type of white blood cell that express a variety of innate receptors, which mediated signaling has been fully characterized by researchers.

Virally-infected or cancerous cells become stressed and accumulate cell surface phosphoantigens (isopentenyl pyrophosphate – IPP’s) which are recognized by GD-T2 cells. Our proprietary technology platform includes the manufacturing of unmodified and genetically modified (CAR-T) GD-T cells as therapeutic candidates for use in clinical trials and commercialization. Almost all aspects of the value-chain from product manufacture, quality systems, clinical and regulatory are operated in-house by TC BioPharm. We believe this is one of our core competitive advantages, which we believe will contribute materially to our ability to overcome the challenging nature of developing new products.

Human lymphocytes comprise two groups of cells, B cells that generate antibodies for humoral immunity, and T cells that are responsible for cellular immune responses. In healthy individuals, GD-T cells generally represent between 1% and 10% of peripheral blood T lymphocytes and present one of the first lines of defense against a wide range of bacterial and viral pathogens, as well as surveillance for cancerous cells. GD-T cells have the ability to regulate the initial immune response in several ways, including recruitment of other immune cells such as neutrophils, dendritic cells and macrophages through production of various chemokines (Kirby et al., 2007). Depletion of GD-T cells leads to impaired host defense to lung infections, for example (Moore et al., 2000; Lockhart et al., 2006). The predominant subset of GD-T cells in the blood is the GD-T2, which mediates a variety of immune responses by direct cytolysis of cancer cells and infected cells, development of memory phenotypes and modulation of other immune cells. The gammadelta1 (GD-T1) is a functionally distinct subset of GD-T cells, which are a predominantly tissue resident population. GD-T1s are less well characterized, but their cytotoxic function also has been described in different liquid and solid tumors (Siegers & Lamb, 2014).

Both subsets of GD-T cells are thought to play a role in autoimmune disorders such as celiac disease, rheumatoid arthritis, autoimmune polyglandular syndrome and sarcoidosis where such lymphocytes are seen to accumulate in high numbers.

GD-T cell killing a cancer cell.   (1) A human GD-T (labelled ‘T’) identifies and scans (2) the surface of a cancer cell (labelled ‘C’). On contact with the cancer cell (3) the GD-T releases perforin granules (stained red) into the cancer cell, rupturing its membrane (4) destroying the cancer cell (adapted from – Enc Life Sci, Jul-2007).

How can GD-Ts be used to treat disease?

Cellular immunotherapy is a form of treatment that harnesses the cells of the immune system to combat disease and is one of the most actively pursued areas of research by biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies today. Interest in immunotherapy is largely driven by recent compelling efficacy data in cancers and by the potential to achieve a cure or functional cure for some patients. While the field of immunotherapy in cancer, in general, has achieved proof of concept and yielded significant durable responses in multiple tumor types, there remain major tumor types such as colon, breast, and prostate cancers as well as patient groups within responsive tumors, that do not respond to current immunotherapy treatments. One theory to explain this non-responsiveness is that certain tumors require direct immune stimulation. T cell-based technologies seek to deliver activated T cells towards malignancies to initiate an immune response. The primary challenges in the field have been to couple an acceptable efficacy and safety profile to successfully target solid tumors.

Adoptive T cell transfer typically involves administration of autologous, allogeneic, or genetically-modified T cells (see footer below) into a recipient host with the specific goal of boosting or transferring enhanced immunologic functionality. One of the most advanced cell-based approaches – chimeric antigen receptor modified T cells (CAR-T) – has gained momentum. In a recent study, patients with refractory B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia were treated with autologous genetically-modified T cells, with almost 90% of patients showing a marked improvement (Pan et al., 2017). Although the treatment is showing promise for specific tumor types, the safety profile remains a concern, as serious adverse events have previously been reported following CAR-T therapy (Grigor et al., 2017). As a consequence of safety issues related to this approach, regulatory approval may be more complex for this genetically modified T cell therapy which effectively has two ‘starting materials’ – (i) the cellular component, and (ii) a lentiviral vector. The therapeutic premise is well-established – T cells are transduced with a viral vector encoding a chimeric antigen receptor capable of recognizing cancer-specific antigens, for example, CD19 which is commonly expressed on several tumors such as myeloma and B cell lymphomas. Transduction is the process by which DNA is transferred from one cell to another by a virus; in this specific case DNA is introduced via a viral vector (a tool commonly used by molecular biologists to deliver genetic material).

Following transduction, the T cells are genetically primed to recognize and kill specific tumor cells expressing the target antigen. The process involves extracting a patient’s T cells (or growing an allogeneic T cell bank), transfecting the cells with a gene for a chimeric-antigen-receptor (CAR), and re-infusing transfected T cells into the patients. The use of cancer-specific cell therapies has gained momentum as several companies demonstrated that genetically modified CAR-T cells are efficacious when directed against blood tumors. These breakthrough findings have moved cell-based immunotherapy into the forefront of clinical oncology with two drugs now in the market.

T lymphocytes have long been known to play an important role in cancer suppression and modulation of tumor growth and numerous experimental studies have demonstrated the anti-cancer potential of GD-T lymphocytes. Indeed, GD-T cells can recognize a number of specific tumor-associated molecules including non-peptidic antigens (IPP’s – isopentenyl pyrophosphate) and immune surveillance stress signals (such as HSP60/70, MICA, MICB, and ULBP) present on the surface of transformed cells. The GD-T cell overexpresses IL-2 receptors and this cytokine is necessary to activate them (Kjeldsen-Kragh, 1993). On recognizing a tumor cell, GD-T cells exert their anti-cancer properties via release of both perforin and of granzyme, a serine protease which enters the target cell to trigger cell death (apoptosis). Our research efforts are focused entirely on targeting tumors in ways that may result in an improved therapeutic index and that have potential applications in solid tumors as well as hematological malignancies. In contrast to conventional AB CAR-T cells, our GD-T cell technology provides greater specificity in targeting tumors through recognition of IPP-expressing cells, whilst avoiding on-target, off-tumor effects on healthy tissue lacking in IPPs.

Liquid cancers

For cell therapies to be effective several parameters need to be addressed. These include (i) viability, (ii) homing to the tumor, (iii) persistence at the tumor, and (iv) target-specificity.

Use of unmodified GD-Ts to treat blood cancers addresses all the above factors. We believe that (i) we have demonstrated therapeutic cells remain viable when injected into the bloodstream of cancer patients; (ii) our research shows GD-Ts injected into the bloodstream remain in-situ; and (iii) they persist for up to 100 days after administration. Moreover, we believe we have demonstrated that certain late-stage blood cancer patients treated with multiple GD-T doses have shown significantly positive responses. These findings lead TCB to believe that all patients with similar blood cancers may respond to GD-T cell therapy in a positive manner.

Solid cancers

We believe that it may be necessary to use CAR-T technology (i) to maximize therapeutic cell homing into the solid tumor site, and (ii) to increase GD-T cell persistence by ‘tethering’ the cell to antigens present on the cancer cell surface.

In order to overcome toxicities seen with conventional CAR-T approaches, we believe that we have developed a ‘co-stimulatory’ GD-T CAR which will only attack and kill cancerous cells whilst leaving healthy cells unharmed. This is important as many of the current conventional CAR-T therapies cannot distinguish target antigens expressed on healthy cells from those on cancerous cells, which results in various pathologies, including cytokine release syndrome, that in some cases had led to patient death. Such targeting of health cells with conventional CAR-T makes their use in solid cancers difficult, as too much healthy tissue is likely to be destroyed as ‘collateral’ damage in the treatment process.

The diagram below illustrates how TCB’s approach works, using the innate receptors on the GD-T cell surface to act as a ‘safety switch’ – such receptors are generally not triggered by healthy cells, only by disease markers (IPP’s) on the surface of cancerous or virally infected cells.

A	B

Co-stimulatory CAR-T: A) No GD-T cell activation in healthy cell. B) GD-T activation and cell-killing in cancer cell.

Autologous cells are derived from ‘self’, using patients own cells to treat their specific disease

Allogeneic cells are derived from donor material, giving rise to cell banks able to treat numerous patients

Genetically-modified cells are typically engineered with a ‘chimeric’ receptor to target specific cancer antigens

Commercialization of conventional CAR-T cell therapy has taken decades of high-quality research in academia and industry, and it has provided transformational results for a number of patients with B cell malignancies. However, as noted, there are numerous barriers to widespread adoption, including:

The combination of the co-stimulatory CAR, with GD-T cells, provides TCB with a proprietary platform which we believe addresses the problems with existing CAR-T products in the following ways:

Viral infections

GD-Ts are natural killers of virally infected cells, as well as cancerous cells. We believe that our unmodified GD-T therapy offers substantial potential as a first line of attack against future viral pandemics. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we took the opportunity to develop a trial protocol to treat patients with COVID-19, which was approved by the MHRA. We are currently not progressing this trial because of the absence of available patients given the progression of the disease; however we would consider conducting a phase 1b/2a trial if more severe/pathogenic variants emerge and we believe that there is considerable opportunity to deploy our GD-T therapy in the treatment of viral infections, including rapid response treatment of future epidemics and pandemics and selected acute viral infections. Whilst our current focus is to prioritize cancer treatment we will seek opportunities to develop viral treatments either on our own or in partnership in future Numerous peer-reviewed publications have demonstrated that GD-T cells innate killers of cells which have become virally infected. Using Epstein-Barr virus infected cells as an exemplar, TCB has conducted pre-clinical studies to demonstrate that our GMP-compliant manufacturing process results in GD-T with potent anti-viral cytotoxicity

Autologous versus allogeneic

Commercially available cell therapies typically are either autologous or allogeneic. Autologous products are taken from one donor (the patient) and used to treat that same donor (self-to-self), whilst allogeneic products are usually taken from a single donor (not a patient) and used as the starting material to treat a large number of different individuals (patients). GD-T lymphocytes are known to exert their biological effect in a non-MHC restricted manner. This means the potential for graft-versus-host mediated rejection is significantly reduced if allogeneic (non-self) cells are used as a treatment compared with many other immune cell therapies. As many patients with late-stage cancer or severe viral infections are also immunosuppressed, potential for host-mediated rejection of allogeneic cells is also reduced. When compared with autologous variants, commercial benefits of allogenic treatment include the following:

Our strategy for developing an allogeneic solution for CAR-T is to select a pathway which will allow us to bring our products to patients as quickly as possible. These concepts build upon decades of previous development in allogeneic cell therapies and have clear understanding of development requirements in terms of manufacturing, clinical and regulatory execution.

Although manufacture of allogeneic cell therapies allows product to be “pharmaceuticalized” by virtue of campaign manufacture and storage, the approach is however not without technical and logistic challenges. To manufacture allogeneic banks, donor cells need to be screened for numerous adventitious agents, including for example, HIV, hepatitis, CMV and syphilis. Additional tumorgenicity testing is required, and assays conducted to ensure the cell bank is free from karyotypic aberrations. In order to overcome any potential for rejection, TCB has developed allogeneic GD-T cell banks that are unlikely to elicit a graft-versus-host (GvH) or host-versus-graft (HvG) immune response.

Donors are screened and selected based on clinically-relevant history and then based on the proliferative capacity and phenotypic character of their GD-Ts, based on a small volume blood draw and in-house assays. In this way, only good quality GD-T cells are selected for repeat apheresis and banking. The banks are HLA-typed and become the starting material for all of the allogeneic CAR-T products. These banks are cryopreserved in our facilities and can later be thawed, genetically engineered with the CAR, activated and expanded into final product, before being frozen again as multiple individual doses of drug product.

Generation of Gamma Delta T cells from IPSC cells

Identification of appropriate donors whilst possible is challenging as only a limited number of batches can be created from a single donation. GD-T cells can be routinely expanded from peripheral blood over 14 days. This provides a short window of opportunity for cell modification/engineering.

Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) have the potential to overcome these issues because they are capable of unlimited proliferation and multidirectional differentiation. In 2013, several research groups from Japan reported the successful reprogramming of αβT-cells, followed by re-differentiation back to αβT cells (Vizcardo et al., 2013; Nishimura et al., 2013; Themeli et al., 2013). While re-differentiated αβT cells-maintained antigen specificity, they were also characterized by higher proliferation ability than an original T-cell clone.

We hypothesized that GD-T derived iPSCs cells that carry the rearrangements at the TCRG and TCRD gene locus will be able to generate GD-T but not αβT cells. Furthermore, iPSC cells will provide a vast opportunity for the gene-editing without any time constraints of terminally differentiated cells.

Reprogramming GD-T cells has proven to be a challenge, as these cells are not tolerant of cell sorting. Therefore, GD-T cells can be reprogrammed in a bulk culture with the rest of peripheral blood cells or at the end of 14 days expansion, when the purity of GD-T is highest. After several unsuccessful reprogramming attempts, we have optimized the conditions favoring GD-T cells reprogramming. In the last round of reprogramming >50 clones were created. After extensive analysis of DNA rearrangements in δ- and γ-locus of 5 pre-selected clones, it was confirmed that they are derived from GD-T cells with different TCR sequences.

IPSC technology is an attractive approach for the limitless source of GD-T cells are successful progress in reprogramming has been demonstrated. Further work is now required for the establishment of a GMP compatible T-cell differentiation protocol. Generation of GDT cells from iPSC cells presents TCB with a vast opportunity for scaling without any time constraints of terminally differentiated cells.

Fresh versus frozen product

Commercial and clinical development of cellular therapy products will invariably require cryopreservation and frozen storage of cellular starting materials, intermediates and/or final product.

Optimizing cryopreservation is important to obtaining maximum yield and a consistent end-product. Suboptimal cryopreservation can lead not only to batch-to-batch variation, lowered cellular functionality and reduced cell yield, but also to the potential selection of subpopulations with genetic or epigenetic characteristics divergent from the original cell line.

Regulatory requirements also impact on cryopreservation, requiring a robust and reproducible approach to freezing, storage and thawing of the product. This requires attention to all aspects of the application of low temperatures; from the choice of freezing container and cryoprotectant, the cooling rate employed and its mode of delivery, correct handling of the frozen material during storage and transportation, to eventual thawing of the product by the end-user. Each of these elements influences all of the others to a greater or lesser extent and have been taken into consideration as TCB moves from fresh to cryopreserved cell-based product.

In a submission to UK regulators, we provided batch manufacture and supporting data, and TCB was granted approval to commence treatment of cancer patients using frozen allogeneic product. This represents a significant milestone for TCB, as we pioneer use of cryopreserved-donated cells to treat cancer. Obvious benefits include increased product reproducibility, ability to ship product globally on request and significant economy of scale (through batch manufacture and storage).

Clinical studies – unmodified GD-Ts in blood cancer

Management of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is based on intensive chemotherapy and/or stem cell transplant, but these therapies lead to high relapse rates amongst treated patients. Particularly for the relapsed/refractory AML population or those who are not eligible for alloHSCT or intensive chemotherapy, the therapy options are limited, and patients are often placed in experimental protocol therapies or palliative care. As a result, there is a need for additional therapies, particularly for these cohorts.

GD-T cells have emerged as a promising therapy due to their ability to specifically target cancer cells. Nonclinical studies performed in AML cell lines suggest that GD-T cells specifically target AML tumor cells and lead to cell lysis in vitro (Kirk et al., 1993). Additionally, in xenotransplantation animal models, GD-T cells obtained from healthy volunteers specifically target AML cells and result in increased survival and diminished tumor burden in NOD mice (Gertner-Dardenne et al., 2012). Similarly, in vitro experiments conducted by TCB further support such findings whilst providing evidence that OmnImmune® (TCB002) specifically targets stress induced cells and effectively kills AML cells lines.

In the clinic, allogeneic treatment in AML patients in the phase 1b/2a trial OmnImmune® (TCB002) has shown our product is well-tolerated with some preliminary evidence of anticancer activity. Firstly, there were no signs of graft vs. host disease (GvHD) following therapy and secondly, CR (complete response) and MLFS (morphologic leukemia free state) were observed. Earlier results with autologous product demonstrated good tolerability. For the allogeneic product, OmnImmune® (TCB002), additional procedures were included to prevent GvHD (e.g. AB T cell depletion). Literature reports were also supportive of the use of OmnImmune® (TCB002) in cancer patients. The phase 1b/2a trial tested OmnImmune® (TCB002) in active relapsed or refractory AML who were not eligible for or did not consent to high dose salvage chemotherapy and/or allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT). The trial was conducted to identify a tolerable dose and better understand the safety of this therapy in the chosen indication as well as generate preliminary information on potential clinical benefit. The primary, secondary and exploratory endpoints were as follows:

Primary endpoints:

Secondary endpoints:

Exploratory endpoints:

No formal statistical analysis was planned. The incidence of DLTs were to be summarized descriptively by γδ T cells dose for evaluable patients. The recommended dose would be determined as the greatest with an incidence of DLTs no greater than 1/3. All other data including efficacy results were summarized descriptively by γδ T cells dose.

The trial enrolled 8 patients and healthy donors aged >18 years.

Clinical outcome

Seven patients were treated with OmnImmune® (TCB002). The eighth patient could not be dosed because the study was terminated as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, which prevented the importation of investigational product from Scotland to the Czech Republic. No safety concerns were raised during Safety Review Committee (SRC) meetings. No treatment related Serious Adverse Reactions (SARs) were reported in any of the patients who were enrolled in the trial. No grade 3≥ OmnImmune® (TCB002) treatment related toxicities were noted in any of the treated patients. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed and no emergency safety measures have occurred for any subjects receiving OmnImmune® (TCB002). Two patients at 28 days post-treatment achieved a CR (one patient) or MLFS (one patient); another patient was classified as attaining stable disease with > 50% reduction in bone marrow blast count; one additional patient exhibited reduction in blast levels at 14 days; and one patient had disease progression (see table below). One patient (PRA1-5003) died 21 days after TCB002 due to bilateral pneumonia, determined unrelated to study medication. One patient (PRA1-5010) was withdrawn because of the COVD-19 pandemic before bone marrow aspiration on day 28 post-treatment. These preliminary indications of anticancer activity were not expected given the refractory profile of the enrolled patients.

The EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire resulted in scoring from six of the seven patients dosed with OmnImmune® (TCB002) for varying periods of time depending on their study duration. At 7 days post dosing, the average QoL score from six patients had decreased from 55.7 to 47.2 out of a possible maximum of 100. This negative impact on QoL reflects the well characterized side effects of preconditioning therapy with cyclophosphamide and fludarabine given between 6 and 2 days prior to OmnImmune® (TCB002) administration. The score remained lower in the four patients assessed at 28 days at a level of 50.0. In the two patients (one CR and one MLFS) who were assessed at the end of the study (week 24), both had recovered to an improved QoL score, each of 67.0.

FDA Orphan Drug Designation

About 60 million people living in the European Union (EU) and USA suffer from a rare disease. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) and FDA play a central role in facilitating the development and authorization of medicines for rare diseases, which are termed ‘orphan medicines’ in the medical world. Developing medicines intended for small numbers of patients has little commercial incentive under normal market conditions. Therefore, the EU and USA offer a range of incentives to encourage the development of designated orphan medicines.

The general therapeutic strategy for the treatment of AML has not changed substantially over the past 30 years. Excluding APL (which should be treated with trans-retinoic acid), AML management is based primarily on induction, incorporating an anthracycline and cytarabine, and consolidation therapy, and/or allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation (alloHSCT). Induction/consolidation therapy leads to high CRs rates in those who are eligible for treatment and present a favorable risk profile.

Several novel agents are in various stages of development for the treatment of AML. Novel approaches include antibody-based immunotherapy and adoptive cell therapy that aim to improve anti-leukemia T cell function, such as the therapies developed by TCB (OmnImmune®).

OmnImmune® (TCB002) was initially studied in patients with active relapsed or refractory AML who are not eligible or do not consent to high dose salvage chemotherapy and/or alloHSCT. In July 2019, OmnImmune® (TCB002) was granted ‘orphan medicine’ status from the FDA for Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML). TCB intends to conduct a further clinical phase 2/3 study (OmnImmune® (TCB008-001)) in 2021/2 aimed at treating earlier stage AML patients.

Summary of TCB’s phase 1b/2a clinical trial in patients with fourth-line-of-treatment acute myeloid leukemia. Subsequent to the completion of this study TCB commenced phase 2b into 3 (pivotal) patient treatment during H1, 2022.

Pipeline and plan

Our future pipeline is focused on treating liquid cancers with our unmodified GD-T therapies and the treatment of solid cancers with next-generation allogeneic GD-T CAR-T therapies.

Our unmodified cell therapy, used in the treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia, is supplied under the name OmnImmune.

OmnImmune® is an allogeneic unmodified GD-T (GD-T2) cell product. Donor-derived GD-T cells for proliferative capacity, were activated and expanded in our manufacturing facility before being infused into the patient as part of our OmnImmune® (TCB002) phase 1 trial. This trial was completed in H1 2020 at the Institute of Hematology and Blood Transfusion in Prague, Czech Republic. Having generated meaningful clinical data showing our product is well-tolerated in late-stage AML patients with no remaining treatment options, TCB commenced a phase 2b-into pivotal (phase 3) clinical studies (with OmnImmune®) during 2022 in AML patients who have failed to respond adequately to induction therapy. The aim is to provide a form of salvage therapy which will either stabilize the patient, thereby preventing disease progression, or delay the requirement for human stem cell transplant. Our initial trial centers are in the UK. Working on the premise that other blood cancers should respond to GD-Ts in a similar manner to AML, TCB plans to conduct clinical studies for OmnImmune® in other hematological malignancies in future. The initial phase 1b/2a trials were undertaken using fresh cell-based product under the program number TCB002. For ease of reference, when discussing that specific trial, we refer the program as OmnImmune® (TCB002). The subsequent planned phase 2b-into pivotal (phase 3) clinical studies uses a frozen cell-based product under the program number TCB008-001. When discussing that specific trial, we refer the program as OmnImmune®.

We plan to develop a range of allogeneic co-stimulatory GD-T CAR pre-clinical drug candidates which will target antigens expressed on a number of solid tumor types.

TCB has generated in-vitro preclinical data as part of our CAR-T program which demonstrated that GD-Ts are very high purity and can be CAR-transduced with high efficiency (see diagram below). Gamma delta cell purity and transduction efficiency have been measured using flow cytometry. CAR positive cells were measured by a detection reagent labelled with the fluorophore Phycoerythrin (PE). Flow cytometry analysis used the parameters of side scatter height (SSC-H) and PE area (PE-A) to define the cell populations. This is demonstrated in the figure below comparing non-transduced (NTD) and transduction with a co-stimulatory CAR construct (co-stim CAR).

We have also demonstrated that following transduction with different CAR constructs, GD-T’s can be effectively and reproducibly expanded in-vitro whilst exhibiting increased cytotoxicity in a zoledronate-dependent manner (see diagrams below – zoledronate-dependency reflects TCB’s proprietary process for commercial expansion of GD-T’s). The CAR constructs contained different endodomains including DNAX-activating protein 10 (DAP-10) and the high affinity IgE receptor (FcR) with no endodomain (no-endo) and non-transduced (NTD) as controls. These data outline the key preclinical parameters investigated in advance of progressing our CAR-T products into clinical trials. TCB has engaged with UK regulators to discuss the design of GD-T CAR phase1b/2a clinical studies (specifically relating to patient dosing and quality systems).

Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were initiated into culture and GD-T cells expansion stimulated by zoledronic acid. On day 2 of expansion, cells were transduced with lentiviral vectors (LVV) to deliver the indicated CAR constructs. After routine feeding through the expansion process, cells were harvested on day 14 and the total cell number, fold expansion and viability of GD-T cells evaluated. Data present a compilation of experiments across multiple individual donors (N=9; n=1-5).

Manufacturing

Unlike many pre-clinical and early clinical stage biotech companies that rely on outsourcing key manufacturing and development functions with consequent complex and expensive supply chains and delays in delivery and execution, we have built a world-class fully integrated GMP grade specialist GD-T manufacturing center in Glasgow, Scotland. This facility undertakes all key functions associated with our GD-T cell development, testing, quality assurance, product manufacture, clinical trial recruitment, management design, support and interaction with regulators. This has resulted in rapid, focused development; highly efficient cost control;, controlled supply chain; speed of development and clinical delivery. We employ over 80 highly qualified people at our facility. The inspiration to create a fully integrated facility came from our founders’ vision and considerable experience in cell therapy.

All advanced therapy medicinal products in the UK must be manufactured by law under a manufacturer’s license granted by the MHRA. TCB received its Manufacturer’s Authorisation for Investigational Medicinal Products MIA (IMP) from the MHRA in January 2015 (license number MIA (IMP) 42803). In April 2016, the MHRA granted the ‘Specials’ license to TCB as well as approving the facility for ongoing GMP compliance, which permits the manufacture and release of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs) for use in clinical trials.

The backbone of our company is TCB’s Quality Management System, which TCB based on the principles of the current GMP as described in the ‘Rules and Guidance for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Distributors’ and EudraLex Volume 4 as revised. This is achieved by the application of a Quality Management System based around the requirements of ICH Q10 and the EU GMP Guide, which address factors affecting the desired quality, namely the personnel, facilities, equipment, materials, processes, procedures training, vendor selection and approval, User Requirement Specification (URS) qualification and validation of assays and systems and the record keeping. All personnel joining TCB undergo rigorous training on everything from GMP through to formalized systems for measuring and evaluating risk.

*MHRA approved GMP compliant (last inspection December 2020 – observations only)

TCB’s manufacturing facilities are equipped with two Class B clean rooms with space secured for future expansion for production of our products as it progresses from phase I to phase III clinical trials. The facility is also equipped with Development and Quality control testing laboratories together and ample stores for goods inwards and product release plus storage for intermediate and final product. Equipment is controlled and monitored through a Management Information System with 24/7 monitoring. All laboratory equipment undergoes a formal URS and once installed undergoes full qualification prior to it being put into routine use.

TCB’s Quality Control team are responsible for the majority of release testing for our products. The Quality Control departments (analytical and microbiology) are responsible for product characterization using bespoke phenotyping and potency assays, safety testing assays and final release of the product to the clinic. In-house testing within TCB’s Quality Control laboratories eliminates the necessity for third party involvement, resulting in reduced costs and gaining full control of scheduling. The Quality Control departments remit also extends to the microbiological monitoring of the facility to measure, assess and control the exceptionally high levels of sterility required within the aseptic manufacturing suites. Extensively equipped Quality Control microbial laboratories allow environmental monitoring of the manufacturing cleanrooms to GMP standards. The laboratories house incubators, biological safety cabinets, centrifuges, fridges, freezers, air and particle monitors.

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. While we believe that our scientific knowledge, technology and development experience provide us with competitive advantages, we face potential competition from many different sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies and public and private research institutions. Any GD-T cell therapeutic candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing products and new products that may become available in the future. We believe our advanced clinical products in allogeneic and unmodified GD-Ts provide us a first mover advantage in oncology and viral indications. Our continued efforts in advancing our modified platform technologies, along with our efforts in banked GD-Ts, are in direct competition with a number of public and private companies in the cell therapy space.

TC BioPharm is part of a growing number of companies commercially active in the cellular immunotherapy space. Such companies developing call-based products include AdicetBio who presented phase 1 data from patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma using allogeneic GDT-1’s modified with a CAR against CD20 – published initial results documented safety and CR/PR in some patients. Other companies include Allogene who are using various CAR-modified allogeneic alpha-beta cells to treat non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, acute myeloid leukemia and renal cell carcinoma; Autolus who are conducting clinical studies using autologous alpha-beta T cells using CAR’s directed against either CD19/22 or CD20, listed indications include acute lymphoblastic leukemia, B cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas and chronic lymphoblastic leukemia; and In8Bio who have several ongoing phase 1 and 2 clinical programs including an autologous DRI resistant to alkylating agents for treating glioblastoma and an allogeneic product for treating patients with acute leukemia, In8Bio also have a bespoke GDT therapy for AML derived from hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Apart from TCB who manufacture cell-based product in-house, we believe the above companies contract-out GMP formulation of clinical product to third-party organizations.

Commercial leaders in the CAR-T space are Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) and Gilead (Foster City, CA). Both of these companies market autologous CD19-targeted AB CAR-T products. Bristol Myers Squibb (New York, NY) has obtained approval for its CD19-directed CAR-T. Via third party collaborations, all three of the commercial leaders in autologous CAR-T, have accessed gene editing technology with a view to creating allogeneic products. Novartis have partnered with Intellia (Cambridge, MA), Gilead have an agreement with Sangamo Therapeutics (Richmond, CA) and Bristol Myers Squibb have an agreement with Editas Medicine (Cambridge, MA).

We do not believe that any of these competitors will offer the same commercial proposition as our GD-T cell therapeutic candidates due to our:

Our Strengths

Our clinical trials have provided very strong evidence of drug-toleration and some preliminary evidence of clinical benefit.

Our clinical trial of TCB001 involved treatment of patients with autologous unmodified GD-Ts. In a phase 1b/2a dose-ranging safety study (maximum total dose 30x10⁹ cells) we saw no evidence of drug-related severe adverse events. A total of eight patients were treated with escalating doses of TCB001, and no treatment-related toxicities were reported during the full six-week therapeutic course. Data from OmnImmune® (TCB002) suggests an excellent tolerability, with no observed Host versus Graft Disease (HvGD) and some preliminary indication of clinical benefit. OmnImmune® (TCB002) has been granted Orphan Drug Designation by the FDA.

Our CAR-T platform is centered on development of safer and more widely applicable therapeutic candidates and associated process and manufacturing capabilities.

Our proprietary co-stimulatory CAR-T technology platform covers identification of target cancer antigens, successful design and engineering of target sequences, preclinical safety testing and optimized manufacturing processes suitable for producing therapeutic candidates for use in clinical trials and commercialization. We believe the platform will enable development of additional GD-T cell therapeutic candidates targeting cancers that have previously been difficult to treat. We believe the products will be demonstrably safer than the current generation of AB T cell CAR-T products because they will not attack healthy non-cancerous cells and augment the natural biological process rather than bypassing it.

We have identified a large and growing pool of cancer targets for which we can develop additional therapeutic candidates.

We have identified over 20 antigens that are preferentially expressed in cancer cells and have established ongoing research programs to develop several of these into our GD-T platform. Within the terms of our agreement, bluebird bio, we have first right of refusal on a further three oncology targets. Each antigen target presents an opportunity to target many cancer types and therefore presents multiple potential represents a development, collaboration and/or an out-licensing opportunity as each target could be used to target specific cancer types. Growing the pipeline of products built on our co-stimulatory CAR-T and reaching patients is our priority.

We have historically entered collaborative arrangements with partners (bluebird bio, Inc (now 2seventybio). (USA) and Nipro Corporation (Japan), which involve funded or partly funded preclinical collaboration. It is uncertain at this time whether TCB will receive any significant revenues from these collaborations.

We retain control of key business elements, such as product manufacture and clinical research.

Whilst many companies contract out product manufacture, quality systems and clinical trial management, we have elected to build these skills in-house. TC BioPharm has a GMP (Good Manufacturing Practice) cleanroom facility where our products are manufactured. We also retain all the quality support systems such as product testing and release of final product to the clinic. Keeping these systems in-house allows the Company to control all aspects of the manufacturing process whilst significantly reducing costs of goods (CoGs). Further saving on costs are accrued by in-house manufacture, as contract manufacturing organizations (CMOs) will typically charge several times more than the actual costs to maintain their profit margins. Rather than fully outsource our clinical trial management, data management and pharmacovigilance, we maintain an inhouse clinical team that partners with a contract clinical research organization (CRO) for data management and pharmacovigilance services. The inhouse clinical team conducts and manages our own clinical trials in-house. In addition to significant cost savings, this allows us to build a strong working relationship with physicians who are treating the cancer patients; we believe this is key to successful product development as the physicians participating in our clinical studies will also be our future customers. We believe that retaining control of key elements of our business such as GMP manufacture and clinical operations, has allowed TC BioPharm to move quickly and efficiently since incorporation.

We continue to file new patent applications from new in-house product development, and have a strong growing intellectual property portfolio to protect our products and proprietary platform.

We have a strong intellectual property portfolio covering the key aspects of our manufacturing processes and product platforms. Our in-house product development team are dedicated to developing new therapeutic candidates and optimizing current manufacturing processes. All of our patent families are currently in various stages of the patent approval process, and as leaders in the path towards the commercialization of GD-Ts we hold significant first-mover advantage captured by trade secrets and know-how.

Our policy of developing strategic alliances has and will provide additional support for product development and commercialization.

We believe that strategic alliances, both historic and potential future alliances, have and will provide extensive experience in scale-up and automation, culture media manufacture and post-authorization sales and marketing with regional expertise. Additionally, we expect to use knowledge gained from our collaborations to improve development pathways for our unpartnered CAR-T therapeutic candidate programs.

We have a highly knowledgeable and experienced management team with extensive industry experience and expertise in the United States and in Europe.

Mr. Kobel joined us as our Chief Executive Officer at the time of our IPO. Bryan brings a US presence to our executive team and over 15 years’ experience in Healthcare and Life Sciences capital markets. Martin Thorp, our Chief Financial Officer has over 40 years’ experience in implementing capital strategies globally from seed investment to IPO. He was global CEO of Arthur Andersen Corporate Finance based in New York.

Ability to treat patients under the ‘Specials’ regulatory framework.

European regulations (Regulation 167 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012) set out the exemption from the requirement for a medicinal product, placed on the market in the UK to hold a marketing authorization. This exemption flows from Article 5(1) of EU Directive 2001/83/EC, which states that a member of the EU may, in accordance with legislation in force and to fulfil special needs, excludes from the provisions of this Directive medicinal products supplied in response to a bona fide unsolicited order, formulated in accordance with the specifications of an authorized healthcare professional and for use by an individual patient under his or her direct personal responsibility. Such an unlicensed medicinal product may only be supplied in order to meet the special needs of an individual patient. An unlicensed medicinal product should not be supplied where an equivalent licensed medicinal product can meet the special needs of the patient. Responsibility for deciding whether an individual patient has “special needs” which a licensed product cannot meet should be a matter for the doctor, dentist, nurse independent prescriber, pharmacist independent prescriber or supplementary prescriber responsible for the patient’s care.

In terms of time and cost, the ‘Specials’ scheme is an attractive strategy. We believe that accumulating evidence by this route could lead to rapid and wider product uptake through ‘off-label’ use.

Intellectual Property

We have a strong portfolio of patents covering manufacture and commercialization of GD-T cell products and their modification via CAR-T (summarized below). Our technology platform and clinical programs have enabled us to raise over $100 million in grant, equity and collaboration funding since becoming operational in 2017. This financing has allowed us to enhance and expand our clinical and preclinical programs as well as build our team of world-class scientists.

The following table provides an overview of our core technology platforms, technology assets and competencies across the business. Additional details of our intellectual property portfolio are provided below.

The strength of our patents involves complex legal and scientific questions and can be uncertain.

We actively seek to protect the intellectual property and proprietary technology that we believe is important to our business, including seeking, maintaining, enforcing and defending patent rights for our therapeutics and processes, whether developed internally or licensed from third parties. Our success will depend on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other protection including data/market exclusivity for our therapeutic products and platform technology, preserve the confidentiality of our know-how and operate without infringing the valid and enforceable patents and proprietary rights of third parties.

Our policy is to seek to protect our proprietary position generally by filing an initial priority filing at the U.K. Intellectual Property Office, or UKIPO. This is followed by the filing of a patent application under the Patent Co-operation Treaty claiming priority from the initial application(s) and then progressing to national applications in, for example, the United States, Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, China and Canada. In each case, we determine the strategy and territories required after discussion with our patent professionals to ensure that we obtain relevant coverage in territories that are commercially important to us and our GD-T therapeutic candidates. We will additionally rely on data exclusivity, market exclusivity and patent term extensions when available, including as relevant exclusivity through orphan or pediatric drug designations. We also rely on trade secrets and know-how relating to our underlying platform technology and therapeutic products. Prior to making any decision on filing any patent application, we consider, with our patent professionals, whether patent protection is the most sensible strategy for protecting the invention concerned or whether the invention should be maintained as confidential.

As of March 22, 2024, we own 16 granted patents and 11 patent applications in 3 families, and have an exclusive license to an additional 1 family of 14 granted patents and 8 patent applications. Consistent with the filing strategy outlined above, all of our applications are either UK applications, PCT applications or national phase applications derived from a corresponding PCT application. All sets of national phase applications include a US application / patent. These patents and patent applications include claims directed to our therapeutic products and platform technology or other manufacturing and process technology to further enable our therapeutic products and manufacturing methods.

WO 2016/166544 (Modified Gamma Delta T Cells and uses thereof). International filing date April 14, 2016, earliest priority date April 15, 2015.

We own patents and patent applications covering a method of treatment for cancer using GD-T cells that express chimeric antigen receptors (CARs). The patent application claims are directed to GD-T cells expressing a co-stimulatory CAR, the advantages of the co-stimulatory CAR by inhibiting on-target, off-tumor activation due to its design, to the method and process of modifying a GD-T cell to express the co-stimulatory CAR, and to medical uses of the modified GD-T cell. A US patent application has issued as a granted patent in the US (US 10881688 B2, expires October 7, 2036 in view of USPTO calculated Patent Term Adjustment (PTA)). Applications have been granted in Australia (AU 2016250211), China (ZL 201680034862.3) Israel (IL 255011), and Japan (JP 6995624) and at the Eurasian Patent Office. National applications remain pending in: Australia, Hong Kong, and the US. A regional patent application is pending before the European Patent Office.

WO 2016/174461 (T cell which expresses a Gamma Delta T cell receptor and a Chimeric Antigen Receptor). International filing date April 29, 2016, earliest priority date April 30, 2015. Expiry date will be April 28, 2036 in most jurisdictions. Further patent term adjustments may apply in the US.

We are the exclusive licensee of patents and patent applications owned by UCL Business plc covering a method of treatment using a T cell which expresses a Gamma Delta T cell receptor and a chimeric antigen receptor. The patent application claims are directed to GD-T cells expressing a co-stimulatory CAR, the advantages of the co-stimulatory CAR by inhibiting on-target, off-tumor activation due to its design, to the method and process of modifying a GD-T cell to express the co-stimulatory CAR, and to medical uses of the modified GD-T cell. National applications have been granted in Australia (AU 2016255611, expires April 28, 2036), Canada (CA2982532), Japan (JP 6986449), Israel (IL 255186), South Africa (ZA 2017/06923), and via the Eurasian regional patent (EA 041081) in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan. Additional national applications are pending in: Brazil, China, Hong Kong, South Korea, New Zealand, Singapore, and the US. A regional patent application is pending before the European Patent Office.

WO 2016/005752 (Gamma Delta T cells and uses thereof). International filing date July 8, 2015, earliest priority date July 9, 2014. Expiry date for the patent granted in Israel will be July 7, 2035.

We own an Israeli patent and Japanese patent applications covering the method of preparing and using GD-T cells in the allogeneic treatment of subjects suffering from viral infection, fungal infection, protozoal infection or cancer. The patent application claims are directed to the process of providing GD-T cells from a first subject to a second subject (allogeneic transfer).

WO 2019/064030 (Modified CAR-T). International filing date October 1, 2018, earliest priority date September 29, 2017.

We own a US Patent (US11890302) and patent applications covering chimeric antigen receptors comprising an intracellular signaling domain derived from GD-T cell surface receptors. When expressed in GD or natural killer (NK) cells, the resultant CAR-T cells exhibit improved cytotoxicity. National applications are pending in: Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, and South Korea,. A regional patent application is pending before the European Patent Offices.

Platform technology patent applications – We have several other patent applications in the process of being drafted, improving T cell efficacy by modulating PD1 expression, additional methods of expanding GD-T1 gamma-delta T cell populations and improvements to our GD CAR-T platform

Government Regulation and Product Approval

As a biopharmaceutical company, we are subject to extensive regulation. Our product candidates, if approved, will be regulated as biological medicines. With this classification, commercial production of our products will need to occur in registered and licensed facilities in compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practices, or cGMPs, for biologics.

Human immunotherapy products are a new category of therapeutics. The FDA categorizes human cell- or tissue-based products as either minimally manipulated or more than minimally manipulated and has determined that more than minimally manipulated products require clinical trials to demonstrate product safety and efficacy and the submission of a Biologics License Application, or BLA, for marketing authorization.

Government authorities in the United States (at the federal, state and local level) and in other countries and jurisdictions, including the European Union, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, preclinical and clinical testing, manufacturing, quality control, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, sale, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of biopharmaceutical products such as those we are developing. Our product candidates must be approved by the FDA before they may be legally marketed in the United States and by the appropriate foreign regulatory agency before they may be legally marketed in foreign countries. Generally, our activities in other countries will be subject to regulation that is similar in nature and scope as that imposed in the United States, although there can be important differences. Additionally, some significant aspects of regulation in Europe are addressed in a centralized way, but country-specific regulation remains essential in many respects. The process for obtaining regulatory marketing approvals and the subsequent compliance with applicable federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

United States Product Development Process

In the United States, the FDA regulates biological products under the Public Health Service Act, or PHSA, and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and implementing regulations. Products are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. FDA sanctions could include, among other actions, refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, warning letters and similar public notice of alleged non-compliance with laws, product recalls or withdrawals from the market, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement of profits, or civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us. The process required by the FDA before a biological product may be approved for marketing in the United States generally involves the following:

Before testing any biological product candidate, including our product candidates, in humans, the product candidate must undergo rigorous preclinical testing. Preclinical tests, also referred to as nonclinical studies, include laboratory evaluations as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess the potential safety and efficacy of the product candidate. After sufficient preclinical testing has been conducted, the conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements including GLPs. The clinical trial sponsor must submit an IND to the FDA before clinical testing can begin in the United States. An IND must contain the results of the preclinical tests, manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature, a proposed clinical protocol, an investigator’s brochure, a sample informed consent form, and other materials. Clinical trial protocols detail, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria, and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety, including stopping rules that assure a clinical trial will be stopped if certain adverse events should occur. Each protocol and any amendments to the protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Some preclinical testing, such as toxicity studies, may continue even after the IND is submitted.

The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA raises concerns or questions regarding the proposed clinical trials or places the trial on a clinical hold within that 30-day time period. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. The FDA may also impose clinical holds on a biological product candidate at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns or non-compliance. If the FDA imposes a clinical hold, trials may not recommence without FDA authorization and then only under terms authorized by the FDA. Accordingly, we cannot be sure that submission of an IND will result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that suspend or terminate such trials.

Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an independent institutional review board, or IRB, at or servicing each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted. An IRB is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of trial participants and considers such items as whether the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the form and content of the informed consent that must be signed by each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. Clinical trials involving recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules also must be reviewed by an institutional biosafety committee, or IBC, a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees basic and clinical research conducted at that institution. The IBC assesses the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the biological product candidate to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control. Clinical trials must be conducted and monitored in accordance with the FDA’s regulations comprising the GCP requirements, including the requirement that all research patients provide informed consent.

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

Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all.

Post-approval clinical trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These clinical trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication, particularly for long-term safety follow-up.

During all phases of clinical development, regulatory agencies require extensive monitoring and auditing of all clinical activities, clinical data, and clinical trial investigators. Annual progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted to the FDA. Written IND safety reports must be promptly submitted to the FDA, and the investigators for serious and unexpected adverse events, any findings from other studies, tests in laboratory animals or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human patients, or any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The sponsor must submit an IND safety report within 15 calendar days after the sponsor determines that the information qualifies for reporting. The sponsor also must notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction within seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information. The FDA or the sponsor or its data safety monitoring board, an independent group of experts that evaluates study data for safety and makes recommendations concerning continuation, modification, or termination of clinical trials, may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk, including risks inferred from other unrelated immunotherapy trials. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the biological product has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

Because this is a relatively new and expanding area of novel therapeutic interventions, there can be no assurance as to the length of the trial period, the number of patients the FDA will require to be enrolled in the trials in order to establish the safety, efficacy, purity and potency of immunotherapy products, or that the data generated in these trials will be acceptable to the FDA to support marketing approval.

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

United States Review and Approval Processes

After the completion of clinical trials of a biological product, FDA approval of a BLA must be obtained before commercial marketing of the biological product. The BLA must include results of product development, laboratory and animal studies, human trials, information on the manufacture and composition of the product, proposed labeling and other relevant information. The testing and approval processes require substantial time and effort and there can be no assurance that the FDA will accept the BLA for filing and, even if filed, that any approval will be granted on a timely basis, if at all as the FDA has significant discretion to approve or reject the BLA and to require additional preclinical or clinical studies.

Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, as amended, each BLA must be accompanied by a significant user fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. PDUFA also imposes an annual program fee for approved biological products. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on BLAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication.

Within 60 days following submission of the application, the FDA reviews a BLA submitted to determine if it is substantially complete before the agency accepts it for filing. The FDA may refuse to file any BLA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission and may request additional information. In this event, the BLA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the BLA. The FDA reviews the BLA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe, potent, and/or effective for its intended use, and has an acceptable purity profile, and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP to assure and preserve the product’s identity, safety, strength, quality, potency and purity. The FDA may refer applications for novel biological products or biological products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions. During the biological product approval process, the FDA also will determine whether a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, is necessary to ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh its risks and to assure the safe use of the biological product, which could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. FDA determines the requirement for a REMS, as well as the specific REMS provisions, on a case-by-case basis. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the BLA must submit a proposed REMS. The FDA will not approve a BLA without a REMS, if required.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA will inspect the facilities at which the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. For immunotherapy products, the FDA also will not approve the product if the manufacturer is not in compliance with the GTPs, to the extent applicable. These are FDA regulations and guidance documents that govern the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for, the manufacture of human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue based products, or HCT/Ps, which are human cells or tissue intended for implantation, transplant, infusion, or transfer into a human recipient. The primary intent of the GTP requirements is to ensure that cell and tissue based products are manufactured in a manner designed to prevent the introduction, transmission and spread of communicable disease. FDA GTP regulations also require tissue establishments to register and list their HCT/Ps with the FDA and, when applicable, to evaluate donors through screening and testing. Additionally, before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure that the clinical trials were conducted in compliance with IND trial requirements and GCP requirements.

To assure cGMP, GTP and GCP compliance, an applicant must incur significant expenditure of time, money and effort in the areas of training, recordkeeping, production, and quality control.

Notwithstanding the submission of relevant data and information, the FDA may ultimately decide that the BLA does not satisfy its regulatory criteria for approval and deny approval. If the agency decides not to approve the BLA in its then current form, the FDA will issue a Complete Response Letter, which generally outlines the specific deficiencies in the BLA identified by the FDA and may require additional clinical or other data or impose other conditions that must be met in order to secure final approval of the application. The deficiencies identified may be minor, for example, requiring labeling changes, or major, for example, requiring additional clinical trials. Even with the submission of additional information, the FDA may ultimately decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. If a Complete Response Letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application.

If a product receives regulatory approval, the approval is limited to the conditions of use (e.g., patient population, indication) described in the application.

Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, or otherwise limit the scope of any approval. In addition, the FDA may require post marketing clinical trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, designed to further assess a biological product’s safety and effectiveness, and testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products that have been commercialized. After approval, many types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, a BLA or supplement to a BLA must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of data or full or partial waivers.

United States Post-Approval Requirements

Any products for which we receive FDA approvals are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse experiences with the product, providing the FDA with updated safety and efficacy information, product sampling and distribution requirements, and complying with FDA promotion and advertising requirements, which include, among others, standards for direct-to-consumer advertising, restrictions on promoting products for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the product’s approved uses (known as “off-label use”), limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and requirements that important safety information and material facts related to the product be disclosed. Although physicians may prescribe legally available products for off-label uses, if the physicians deem to be appropriate in their professional medical judgment, manufacturers may not market or promote such off-label uses. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative liability.

In addition, quality control and manufacturing procedures must continue to conform to applicable manufacturing requirements after approval to ensure the long-term stability of the product. We currently are making clinical trial product in our own facilities in Scotland, United Kingdom. In the future, however, we expect to rely, on third parties for the production of commercial quantities of our products in accordance with cGMP regulations. cGMP regulations require among other things, quality control and quality assurance as well as the corresponding maintenance of records and documentation and the obligation to investigate and correct any deviations from cGMP. Manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved products are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP and other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. Discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer, or holder of an approved BLA, including, among other things, recall or withdrawal of the product from the market.

The FDA also may require post-marketing testing, known as Phase 4 testing, and surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product. Discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, with manufacturing processes, or the failure to comply with applicable FDA requirements can have negative consequences, including adverse publicity, judicial or administrative enforcement, complete withdrawal from the market, product recalls, warning letters from the FDA, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors, product seizure or detention, injunctions, and civil or criminal penalties, among others. Newly discovered or developed safety or effectiveness data may require changes to a product’s approved labeling, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications, and also may require the implementation of other risk management measures. Also, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our products under development.

United States Marketing Exclusivity

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act amended the PHSA to authorize the FDA to approve similar versions of innovative biologics, commonly known as biosimilars. Biosimilars are approved pursuant to an abbreviated pathway whereby applicants need not submit the full slate of preclinical and clinical data, and approval is based in part on the FDA’s findings of safety, purity, and potency for the original biologic (i.e., the reference product). Original BLAs are eligible to receive 12 years of exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the product, which prevents the FDA from approving any biosimilars to the reference product through the abbreviated pathway, but does not prevent approval of BLAs that are accompanied by a full data package and that do not rely on the reference product. A biosimilar may be approved if the product is highly similar to the reference product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components and there are no clinically meaningful differences with the reference product in terms of the safety, purity, and potency.

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of regulatory market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods and patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protection or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric trial in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a trial.

United States Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any product candidates for which we obtain regulatory approval. In the United States and markets in other countries, sales of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend, in significant part, on the extent to which third-party payors provide coverage, and establish adequate reimbursement levels for such products. In the United States, third-party payers include federal and state healthcare programs, private managed care organizations, health insurers and other organizations. The process for determining whether a third-party payer will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process of establishing the reimbursement rate that such a payor will pay for the product. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved products for a particular indication. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price, examining the medical necessity of and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products, therapies and services, in addition to questioning their safety and efficacy.

Reimbursement may impact the demand for, and/or the price of, any product candidate which obtains marketing approval. Even if coverage and reimbursement is obtained for a given product candidate by a third-party payor, the resulting reimbursement payment rates may not be adequate or may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high. Patients who are prescribed medications for the treatment of their conditions, and their prescribing physicians, generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with those medications. Patients are unlikely to use a product, and physicians may be less likely to prescribe a product, unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover all or a significant portion of the cost of the product. Therefore, coverage and adequate reimbursement is critical to new drug product acceptance.

Different pricing and reimbursement schemes exist in other countries. In the EU, governments influence the price of pharmaceutical products through their pricing and reimbursement rules and control of national healthcare systems that fund a large part of the cost of those products to consumers. Some jurisdictions operate positive and negative list systems under which products may only be marketed once a reimbursement price has been agreed. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval, some of these countries may require the completion of additional clinical trials that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines, but monitor and control company profits. In addition, in some countries, cross-border imports from low-priced markets exert a commercial pressure on pricing within a country.

The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription drugs and biologics, has become very intense. Governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. The marketability of any product candidates for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if the government and third-party payors fail to provide coverage and adequate reimbursement. In addition, emphasis on managed care in the United States has increased and we expect will continue to increase the pressure on healthcare pricing. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

United States Healthcare Laws Governing Interactions with Healthcare Providers

In addition to FDA restrictions on marketing of pharmaceutical products, several other types of state and federal laws restrict our business activities, including certain marketing practices. These laws include, without limitation, anti-kickback laws, false claims laws, data privacy and security laws, as well as transparency laws regarding payments or other items of value provided to healthcare providers.

The U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits any person or entity from, among other things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward, or in return for, purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for the purchase, lease or order of any healthcare item, good, facility or service reimbursable, in whole or in part, under Medicare, Medicaid or other federal healthcare programs. The term “remuneration” has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value. This statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on the one hand and prescribers, purchasers and formulary managers on the other hand. Although there are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting certain common activities from prosecution or other regulatory sanctions, the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly, and practices that involve remuneration that are alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchases or recommendations may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. Failure to meet all of the requirements of a particular applicable statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor does not make the conduct per se illegal under the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Instead, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a cumulative review of all its facts and circumstances. Several courts have interpreted the statute’s intent requirement to mean that if any one purpose of an arrangement involving remuneration is to induce referrals of federal healthcare covered business, the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute has been violated. Additionally, the intent standard under the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute was amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, collectively the Affordable Care Act, or ACA, to a stricter standard such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the ACA codified case law that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the U.S. federal False Claims Act.

Federal civil and criminal false claims laws and civil monetary penalties laws, including the U.S. federal False Claims Act, which can be enforced through civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, prohibit any person or entity from, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to the federal government, or knowingly making, or causing to be made, a false statement to have a false claim paid. Pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been prosecuted under these laws for, among other things, allegedly inflating drug prices they report to pricing services, which in turn were used by the government to set Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates, and for allegedly providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product. In addition, certain marketing practices, including off-label promotion, may also violate false claims laws. Further, pharmaceutical manufacturers can be held liable under the U.S. federal False Claims Act even when they do not submit claims directly to government payors if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims.

The U.S. federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, created new federal criminal statutes that prohibit among other actions, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third- party payors, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Like the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the ACA amended the intent standard for certain healthcare fraud under HIPAA such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.

HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, and their implementing regulations, impose certain requirements on “covered entities,” including certain healthcare providers, health plans and healthcare clearinghouses, as well as their respective “business associates” that create, receive, maintain or transmit individually identifiable health information for or on behalf of a covered entity, and their covered subcontractors, relating to the privacy, security, transmission and breach of individually identifiable health information. Further, HITECH also created four new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in U.S. federal courts to enforce HIPAA and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions.

Additionally, the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, created under the ACA, and its implementing regulations, require certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) to annually report to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, information related to certain payments or other transfers of value provided to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors) and teaching hospitals, or to entities or individuals at the request of, or designated on behalf of, the physicians and teaching hospitals as well as certain ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Beginning in 2022, applicable manufacturers also will be required to report information regarding payments and transfers of value provided to physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified nurse anesthetists, anesthesiologist assistants, and certified nurse-midwives.

Additionally, similar healthcare laws and regulations in the European Union and other jurisdictions, including reporting requirements detailing interactions with and payments to healthcare providers and laws governing the privacy and security of certain protected information, such as GDPR, which imposes obligations and restrictions on the collection and use of personal data relating to individuals located in the European Union (including health data).

Finally, the majority of states also have statutes or regulations similar to the aforementioned federal laws, some of which are broader in scope and apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor. Some state laws 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 clinicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures. Some states and local jurisdictions require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives. State and foreign laws also govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of their exceptions and safe harbors, it is possible that business activities can be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulations. Federal and state enforcement bodies have recently increased their scrutiny of interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry.

Ensuring that business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations is costly and time consuming. If business operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other applicable governmental regulations a pharmaceutical manufacturer may be subject to penalties, including civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, exclusion from governmental funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting obligations and oversight if subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, and curtailment or restructuring of operations, any of which could adversely affect a pharmaceutical manufacturer’s ability to operate its business and the results of its operations.

United States Healthcare Reform Efforts

A primary trend in the United States healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Over the last several years, there have been federal and state proposals and legislation enacted regarding the pricing of pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical products, limiting coverage and reimbursement for drugs and other medical products, and making changes to healthcare financing and the delivery of care in the United States.

There continues to be heightened Congressional scrutiny in the United States of pharmaceutical pricing practices designed to, among other things, bring more transparency in product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly enacted legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs.

In addition, other federal health reform measures have been proposed and adopted in the United States that could impact cell therapy. Most notably, there has been political support for rules related to value-based payment alternatives in the Medicaid program. Medicaid is a jointly run federal and state program that provides health benefits coverage for low-income residents and children. In exchange for broad coverage in Medicaid, drug manufacturers are required to sign a Medicare Drug Rebate agreement which requires them to offer Medicaid programs the “best price” available for a particular product. This “best price” takes into consideration any rebates or concessions manufacturers offer, with some exceptions. The final rule would exempt value-based or outcomes-based payment arrangements from the definition of “best price” which provides manufacturers more flexibility to work with commercial payers and states on innovate payment mechanisms for high-cost cell and gene therapies. While Medicaid is not a significant driver of cell therapy sales it is a bellwether program and one we watch closely.

United States FCPA, the Bribery Act and Other Laws

The FCPA, prohibits any U.S. individual or business from paying, offering, or authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the United States to comply with accounting provisions requiring the company to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations. Activities that violate the FCPA, even if they occur wholly outside the United States, can result in criminal and civil fines, imprisonment, disgorgement, oversight, and debarment from government contracts.

Our operations are also subject to non-U.S. anti-corruption laws such as the Bribery Act. As with the FCPA, these laws generally prohibit us and our employees and intermediaries from authorizing, promising, offering, or providing, directly or indirectly, improper or prohibited payments, or anything else of value, to government officials or other persons to obtain or retain business or gain some other business advantage. Under the Bribery Act, we may also be liable for failing to prevent a person associated with us from committing a bribery offense.

We are also subject to other laws and regulations governing our international operations, including regulations administered by the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States and authorities in the European Union, including applicable export control regulations, economic sanctions and embargoes on certain countries and persons, anti-money laundering laws, import and customs requirements and currency exchange regulations, collectively referred to as trade control laws.

Failure to comply with the Bribery Act, the FCPA and other anti-corruption laws and trade control laws could subject us to criminal and civil penalties, disgorgement and other sanctions and remedial measures, and legal expenses.

Review and Approval of New Drug Products in the European Union

In the European Union, medicinal products, including advanced therapy medicinal products, or ATMPs, are subject to extensive pre- and post-market regulation by regulatory authorities at both the European Union and national levels. ATMPs comprise gene therapy products, somatic-cell therapy products and tissue engineered products, which are cells or tissues that have undergone substantial manipulation and that are administered to human beings in order to regenerate, repair or replace a human tissue. We anticipate that our therapy products will be regulated as ATMPs in the European Union. There is legislation at a European Union level relating to the standards of quality and safety for the collection and testing of human blood and blood components for use in cell-based therapies, which could apply to our products. Additionally, there may be local legislation in various European Union Member States, which may be more restrictive than the European Union legislation, and we would need to comply with such legislation to the extent it applies.

EU Clinical Trials

Clinical trials of medicinal products in the European Union must be conducted in accordance with European Union and national regulations and the International Conference on Harmonization, or ICH, guidelines on Good Clinical Practices, or GCP. Additional GCP guidelines from the European Commission, focusing in particular on traceability, apply to clinical trials of ATMPs. The sponsor must take out a clinical trial insurance policy, and in most European Union countries, the sponsor is liable to provide “no fault” compensation to any study subject injured in the clinical trial.

Prior to commencing a clinical trial, the sponsor must obtain a clinical trial authorization from the competent authority, and a positive opinion from an independent ethics committee. The application for a clinical trial authorization must include, among other things, a copy of the trial protocol and an investigational medicinal product dossier containing information about the manufacture and quality of the medicinal product under investigation. Currently, clinical trial authorization applications must be submitted to the competent authority in each EU Member State in which the trial will be conducted. Under the new Regulation on Clinical Trials, which is to take effect in December 2021, there will be a centralized application procedure where one national authority takes the lead in reviewing the application and the other national authorities have only a limited involvement. Any substantial changes to the trial protocol or other information submitted with the clinical trial applications must be notified to or approved by the relevant competent authorities and ethics committees. Medicines used in clinical trials must be manufactured in accordance with cGMP. Other national and European Union-wide regulatory requirements also apply.

During the development of a medicinal product, the EMA and national medicines regulators within the European Union provide the opportunity for dialogue and guidance on the development program. At the EMA level, this is usually done in the form of scientific advice, which is given by the Scientific Advice Working Party of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or CHMP. A fee is incurred with each scientific advice procedure. Advice from the EMA is typically provided based on questions concerning, for example, quality (chemistry, manufacturing and controls testing), nonclinical testing and clinical studies, and pharmacovigilance plans and risk-management programs. In accordance with the EMA’s policy, scientific advice will not be legally binding with regard to any future marketing authorization application of the product concerned.

EU Marketing Authorizations

In order to market a new medicinal product in the European Union, a company must submit and obtain approval from regulators of a marketing authorization application, or MAA. The process for doing this depends, among other things, on the nature of the medicinal product.

The centralized procedure results in a single marketing authorization, or MA, granted by the European Commission that is valid across the EEA (i.e., the European Union as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway). The centralized procedure is compulsory for human drugs that are: (i) derived from biotechnology processes, such as genetic engineering, (ii) contain a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, diabetes, neurodegenerative diseases, autoimmune and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases, (iii) officially designated orphan medicines and (iv) advanced-therapy medicines, such as gene therapy, somatic cell therapy or tissue-engineered medicines. The centralized procedure may at the request of the applicant also be used in certain other cases. Therefore, the centralized procedure would be mandatory for the products we are developing.

The Committee for Advanced Therapies, or CAT, is responsible in conjunction with the CHMP for the evaluation of ATMPs. The CAT is primarily responsible for the scientific evaluation of ATMPs and prepares a draft opinion on the quality, safety and efficacy of each ATMP for which a marketing authorization application is submitted. The CAT’s opinion is then taken into account by the CHMP when giving its final recommendation regarding the authorization of a product in view of the balance of benefits and risks identified. Although the CAT’s draft opinion is submitted to the CHMP for final approval, the CHMP may depart from the draft opinion, if it provides detailed scientific justification. The CHMP and CAT are also responsible for providing guidelines on ATMPs and have published numerous guidelines, including specific guidelines on gene therapies and cell therapies. These guidelines provide additional guidance on the factors that the EMA will consider in relation to the development and evaluation of ATMPs and include, among other things, the preclinical studies required to characterize ATMPs; the manufacturing and control information that should be submitted in a marketing authorization application; and post-approval measures required to monitor patients and evaluate the long-term efficacy and potential adverse reactions of ATMPs. Although these guidelines are not legally binding, we believe that our compliance with them is likely necessary to gain and maintain approval for any of our product candidates.

Under the centralized procedure in the European Union, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA by the EMA is 210 days. This excludes so-called clock stops, during which additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the CHMP. At the end of the review period, the CHMP provides an opinion to the European Commission. If this is opinion favorable, the Commission may then adopt a decision to grant an MA. In exceptional cases, the CHMP might perform an accelerated review of an MAA in no more than 150 days. This is usually when the product is of major interest from the point of view of public health and, in particular, from the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation.

The European Commission may grant a so-called “marketing authorization under exceptional circumstances”. Such authorization is intended for products for which the applicant can demonstrate that it is unable to provide comprehensive data on the efficacy and safety under normal conditions of use, because the indications for which the product in question is intended are encountered so rarely that the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to provide comprehensive evidence, or in the present state of scientific knowledge, comprehensive information cannot be provided, or it would be contrary to generally accepted principles of medical ethics to collect such information. Consequently, marketing authorization under exceptional circumstances may be granted subject to certain specific obligations, which may include the following:

A marketing authorization under exceptional circumstances is subject to annual review to reassess the risk-benefit balance in an annual reassessment procedure. Continuation of the authorization is linked to the annual reassessment and a negative assessment could potentially result in the marketing authorization being suspended or revoked. The renewal of a marketing authorization of a medicinal product under exceptional circumstances, however, follows the same rules as a “normal” marketing authorization. Thus, a marketing authorization under exceptional circumstances is granted for an initial five years, after which the authorization will become valid indefinitely, unless the EMA decides that safety grounds merit one additional five-year renewal.

The European Commission may also grant a so-called “conditional marketing authorization” prior to obtaining the comprehensive clinical data required for an application for a full marketing authorization. Such conditional marketing authorizations may be granted for product candidates (including medicines designated as orphan medicinal products), if (i) the risk-benefit balance of the product candidate is positive, (ii) it is likely that the applicant will be in a position to provide the required comprehensive clinical trial data, (iii) the product fulfills an unmet medical need and (iv) the benefit to public health of the immediate availability on the market of the medicinal product concerned outweighs the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required. A conditional marketing authorization may contain specific obligations to be fulfilled by the marketing authorization holder, including obligations with respect to the completion of ongoing or new studies, and with respect to the collection of pharmacovigilance data. Conditional marketing authorizations are valid for one year, and may be renewed annually, if the risk-benefit balance remains positive, and after an assessment of the need for additional or modified conditions and/or specific obligations. The timelines for the centralized procedure described above also apply with respect to the review by the CHMP of applications for a conditional marketing authorization.

EU Data Exclusivity

Marketing authorization applications for generic medicinal products do not need to include the results of preclinical and clinical trials, but instead can refer to the data included in the marketing authorization of a reference product for which regulatory data exclusivity has expired. If a marketing authorization is granted for a medicinal product containing a new active substance, that product benefits from eight years of data exclusivity, during which generic marketing authorization applications referring to the data of that product may not be accepted by the regulatory authorities, and a further two years of market exclusivity, during which such generic products may not be placed on the market. The two-year period may be extended to three years if during the first eight years a new therapeutic indication with significant clinical benefit over existing therapies is approved.

There is a special regime for biosimilars, or biological medicinal products that are similar to a reference medicinal product but that do not meet the definition of a generic medicinal product, for example, because of differences in raw materials or manufacturing processes. For such products, the results of appropriate preclinical or clinical trials must be provided, and guidelines from the EMA detail the type of quantity of supplementary data to be provided for different types of biological product. There are no such guidelines for complex biological products, such as gene or cell therapy medicinal products, and so it is unlikely that biosimilars of those products will currently be approved in the European Union. However, guidance from the EMA states that they will be considered in the future in light of the scientific knowledge and regulatory experience gained at the time.

EU Pediatric Development

In the European Union, companies developing a new medicinal product must agree to a Pediatric Investigation Plan, or PIP, with the EMA and must conduct pediatric clinical trials in accordance with that PIP, unless a deferral or waiver applies, (e.g., because the relevant disease or condition occurs only in adults). The marketing authorization application for the product must include the results of pediatric clinical trials conducted in accordance with the PIP, unless a waiver applies, or a deferral has been granted, in which case the pediatric clinical trials must be completed at a later date. Products that are granted a marketing authorization on the basis of the pediatric clinical trials conducted in accordance with the PIP are eligible for a six-month extension of the protection under a supplementary protection certificate (if any is in effect at the time of approval) or, in the case of orphan medicinal products, a two-year extension of the orphan market exclusivity. This pediatric reward is subject to specific conditions and is not automatically available when data in compliance with the PIP are developed and submitted.

EU Post-Approval Controls

The holder of a marketing authorization must establish and maintain a pharmacovigilance system and appoint an individual qualified person for pharmacovigilance, or QPPV, who is responsible for oversight of that system. Key obligations include expedited reporting of suspected serious adverse reactions and submission of periodic safety update reports, or PSURs.

All new marketing authorization applications must include a risk management plan, or RMP, describing the risk management system that the company will put in place and documenting measures to prevent or minimize the risks associated with the product. The regulatory authorities may also impose specific obligations as a condition of the marketing authorization. Such risk-minimization measures or post-authorization obligations may include additional safety monitoring, more frequent submission of PSURs, or the conduct of additional clinical trials or post-authorization safety studies. RMPs and PSURs are routinely available to third parties requesting access, subject to limited redactions. All advertising and promotional activities for the product must be consistent with the approved summary of product characteristics, and therefore all off-label promotion is prohibited. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicines is also prohibited in the European Union. Although general requirements for advertising and promotion of medicinal products are established under EU directives, the details are governed by regulations in each EU Member State and can differ from one country to another.

EU Pricing and Reimbursement in the European Union

Governments influence the price of medicinal products in the European Union through their pricing and reimbursement rules and control of national healthcare systems that fund a large part of the cost of those products to consumers. Some jurisdictions operate positive and negative list systems under which products may only be marketed once a reimbursement price has been agreed. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval, some of these countries may require the completion of clinical trials that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies. Other EU Member States allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines, but monitor and control company profits. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription medicines, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products.

Brexit and the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom officially withdrew from the European Union on January 31, 2020 (“Brexit”). Pursuant to the formal withdrawal arrangements agreed between the United Kingdom and the European Union, the United Kingdom was subject to a transition period until December 31, 2020, or the Transition Period, during which European Union rules continued to apply. A trade and cooperation agreement, or the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, that outlines the future trading relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union was agreed in December 2020.

Brexit may influence the attractiveness of the United Kingdom as a place to conduct clinical trials. The European Union’s regulatory environment for clinical trials is being harmonized as part of the Clinical Trial Regulations, which come into full effect at the end of 2021, but it is currently unclear as to what extent the United Kingdom will seek to align its regulations with the European Union. Failure of the United Kingdom to closely align its regulations with the EU may have an effect on the cost of conducting clinical trials in the United Kingdom as opposed to other countries and/or make it harder to seek a marketing authorization for our product candidates on the basis of clinical trials conducted in the United Kingdom.

In the short term there will be few changes to clinical trials that only have sites in the United Kingdom. The MHRA have confirmed that the sponsor of a clinical trial can be based in the EEA for an initial period following Brexit. Further investigational medicinal products can be supplied directly from the EU/EEA to a trial site in the United Kingdom without further oversight until January 1, 2022, and to Northern Ireland beyond such date. The United Kingdom is now a “third country” for the purpose of clinical trials that have sites in the EEA. For such trials the sponsor/legal representative must be based in the EEA, and the trial must be registered on the EU Clinical Trials Register (including data on sites outside of the EEA).

The data exclusivity periods in the United Kingdom are currently in line with those in the European Union, but the Trade and Cooperation Agreement provides that the periods for both data and market exclusivity are to be determined by domestic law, and so there could be divergence in the future. It is currently unclear whether the MHRA in the United Kingdom is sufficiently prepared to handle the increased volume of marketing authorization applications that it is likely to receive.

Orphan designation in the United Kingdom following Brexit is based on the prevalence of the condition in the United Kingdom as opposed to the current position where prevalence in the European Union is the determinant. It is therefore possible that conditions that are currently designated as orphan conditions in the United Kingdom will no longer be and that conditions that are not currently designated as orphan conditions in the European Union will be designated as such in the United Kingdom.

EU Orphan Drug Designation

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) and FDA play a central role in facilitating the development and authorization of medicines for rare diseases, which are termed ‘orphan medicines’ in the medical world. In the EU, sponsors who obtain orphan designation benefit from protocol assistance, a type of scientific advice specific for designated orphan medicines, and market exclusivity once the medicine is on the market. Fee reductions are also available depending on the status of the sponsor and the type of service required. When planning the development of their medicinal product, sponsors should consult the relevant scientific guidelines.

The general therapeutic strategy for the treatment of AML has not changed substantially over the past 30 years. Excluding APL (which should be treated with all trans-retinoic acid), AML management is based primarily on induction, incorporating an anthracycline and cytarabine, and consolidation therapy, and/or allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation (alloHSCT). Induction/consolidation therapy leads to high CRs rates in those who are eligible for treatment and present a favorable risk profile.

Several novel agents are in various stages of development for the treatment of AML. Novel approaches include antibody-based immunotherapy and adoptive cell therapy that aim to improve anti-leukaemia T cell function, such as the therapies developed by TCB (OmnImmune®). OmnImmune® (TCB002) was initially studied in patients with active relapsed or refractory AML who are not eligible or do not consent to high dose salvage chemotherapy and/or alloHSCT. In July 2019, OmnImmune® (TCB002) was granted ‘orphan medicine’ status from the FDA for Acute Myeloid Leukaemia (AML). As a follow on to OmnImmune® (TCB002), TCB intends to conduct phase 2b/3 studies to treat earlier stage AML and expects to commence treating patients in these trials (as OmnImmune® (TCB008-001)) in H1 2022.

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, we may be party to litigation that arises in the ordinary course of our business.

In accordance with the terms of a Convertible Loan Note (‘Note’) on August 9, 2022 (the Conversion Date) the Company issued 183,820 Ordinary Shares and 367,640 listed warrants to the Note holder in full satisfaction of the Note in the aggregate amount of $781,233. The holder filed a claim in the English courts on June 19, 2023 asserting that notice was provided such that the Company should have paid it the value of the Note in cash, rather than by settling it through the issuance of Ordinary Shares and listed warrants. The holder is demanding payment of the face value of the Note, together with interest, (approximately $860,000). The litigation process is in its early stages and is not expected to conclude until late 2024 or later. The Company has retained English solicitors and is contesting the claim in its entirety. The Company believes that it acted correctly under the terms of the Note and has accounted for the transaction on that basis, and that no further amounts are payable to the holder.

Segment Information

We operate in a single operating segment and a single reporting segment. Operating segments are defined as components of an enterprise about which separate financial information is regularly evaluated by the chief operating decision maker function (which is fulfilled by our chief executive officer) in deciding how to allocate resources and in assessing performance. Our chief executive officer allocates resources and assesses performance based upon financial information at the level. Since we operate in one operating segment, all required financial segment information is presented in the financial statements.

Corporate Information

Our corporate headquarters and most of our operations, including our research and manufacturing facilities, are located at Maxim 1, 2 Parklands Way, Holytown, Motherwell, ML1 4WR, United Kingdom. The lease for this space expires February 28, 2029 and covers a total leasable area of approximately 26,300 square feet. We believe that our office facilities and the production and research facilities in the United Kingdom are sufficient to meet our current needs.

We are an “emerging growth company” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012. We will remain an emerging growth company until the earlier of: (i) the last day of the fiscal year (a) following the fifth anniversary of the completion of our IPO, (b) in which we have total annual gross revenue of at least $1.07 billion, or (c) in which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer, which means the market value of our common stock that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $700.0 million as of the prior June 30th, and (ii) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt during the prior three-year period.

Available Information

We maintain a public website at https://tcbiopharm.com and use our website as a routine channel of distribution of company information, including press releases, analyst presentations, and supplemental financial information, as a means of disclosing material non-public information and for complying with our disclosure obligations under Regulation FD. Our website includes an investors’ section through which we make available, free of charge, our Annual Reports on Form 10-K (for the year ended December 31, 2023), our Annual Reports on 20-F (for periods prior to December 31, 2023), Reports on Form 6-K, as well as any amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. Accordingly, investors should monitor our website in addition to following press releases, filings with the SEC, and public conference calls and webcasts.

Summary of Risk Factors

Our business is subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including those risks discussed at length in the section below titled “Risk Factors.” These risks include among others the following:

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital

We have incurred net losses every year since our inception and expect to continue to incur net losses in the future and may never achieve profitability.

We have generated losses since our inception in 2013. Since then, we have devoted substantially all of our resources to research and development efforts relating to our genetically unmodified and genetically engineered GD-T cell candidates, including engaging in activities to manufacture and supply our GD-T cell candidates for clinical trials, conducting initial clinical trials of our lead candidates, general and administrative support for these operations, and protecting our intellectual property. Based on our current plans, we do not expect to generate product or royalty revenues until we obtain marketing approval for, and commercialize, any of our GD-T cell-based candidates.

For the fiscal years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022, we incurred net losses of £5.9 million and £1.3 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2023, we had an accumulated deficit of £38.8 million. We expect to continue incurring significant losses as we continue with our research and development and clinical programs and to incur general and administrative costs associated with our operations. The extent of funding required to develop our product candidates is difficult to estimate given the novel nature of our GD-T cell-based cell therapy candidates and their un-proven route to market. Ultimately, our profitability is dependent upon the successful development, approval, and commercialization of our GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidates and achieving a level of revenues adequate to support our cost structure. We may never achieve profitability and until we do, we will continue to need to raise additional cash.

Our ability to generate revenue from sales of our therapeutic candidates and become profitable depends significantly on our success in a number of factors.

We continue to focus on development activities for our technologies and implementation of the early parts of our business plan. We may never achieve commercial success and continue to operate in the research and development stage, without commercially launching any products at this time. We have limited historical financial data upon which we may base our projected revenue and base our planned operating expenses. Our limited operating history makes it difficult for potential investors to evaluate our potential product candidates, drug therapies or prospective operations and business prospects. As a development stage company, we are subject to all the risks inherent in the initial organization, business development, financing, unexpected expenditures, and complications and delays that often occur in a new business. Investors should evaluate an investment in us in light of the uncertainties encountered by developing companies in a competitive environment. There can be no assurance that our efforts will be successful or that we will ultimately be able to attain profitability.

We have no GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidates approved for commercial sale and have not generated any revenue from sales of our GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidates, and do not anticipate generating any revenue from sales of our GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidates until sometime after we receive regulatory approval, if at all, for the commercial sale of a GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidate. We intend to fund future operations through our existing and future collaboration and licensing agreements for other therapeutic targets and through additional equity financings. Our ability to generate revenue and achieve profitability depends on our success in many factors, including:

Even if one or more of our GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidates is approved for commercial sale, we anticipate incurring significant costs associated with commercializing any approved GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidate. Our expenses will increase beyond our current expectations if the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the FDA, or the United Kingdom Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the MHRA, or any other regulatory agency require changes to our manufacturing processes or assays, or for us to perform preclinical programs and clinical or other types of trials in addition to those that we currently anticipate. If we are successful in obtaining regulatory approvals to market one or more of our GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidates, our revenue will be dependent, in part, upon the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval, the accepted price for the GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidate, the ability to get reimbursement at any price, and whether we own the commercial rights for that territory. If the number of our addressable disease patients is not as significant as we estimate, the indication approved by regulatory authorities is narrower than we expect, or the reasonably accepted population for treatment is narrowed by competition, physician choice or treatment guidelines, we may not generate significant revenue from sales or supplies of such GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidates, even if approved. If we are not able to generate revenue from the sale of any approved GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidates, we may never become profitable.

If we fail to obtain additional financing as needed, we may be unable to complete the development and commercialization of our GD-T cell-based product candidates.

Our operations have required substantial amounts of cash since inception. We expect to continue to spend substantial amounts to continue the development of our GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidates, including for clinical trials. We expect to use our operating capital to advance and accelerate the clinical development of our therapeutic candidates, therefore, changing circumstances beyond our control may cause us to increase our spending significantly faster than we currently anticipate, we believe we will require additional capital, likely in significant amounts, for the further development and commercialization of our GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidates.

We cannot be certain that additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all. We have no committed source of additional capital. If we are unable to raise additional capital in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, we may have to significantly delay, scale back or discontinue the development or commercialization of our GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidates or other research and development initiatives. Our license and supply agreements may also be terminated if we are unable to meet the milestone obligations under these agreements. We could be required to seek collaborators for our GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidates at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable or on terms that are less favorable than might otherwise be available or relinquish or license on unfavorable terms our rights to our GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidates in markets where we otherwise would seek to pursue development or commercialization ourselves. Any of the above events could significantly harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations and cause the price of either of our ADSs or Warrants, or both, to decline.

We, as well as our independent registered public accounting firm, have expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.

Our recurring losses from operations and negative cash flow raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. As a result, our independent registered public accounting firm included an explanatory paragraph in its report on our financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2023 with respect to this uncertainty.

Our ability to continue as a going concern ultimately is dependent upon our generating cash flow from sales that are sufficient to fund operations or finding adequate financing to support our operations. To date, we have had no product revenues and relied on equity-based financing from the sale of securities subscribed by our founders and related parties and in various private placements, and receipts from collaboration partners. Our research and development plans may not be successful in creating a marketable product, and our business plan may not be successful in achieving a sustainable business and generating revenues. We completed our initial public offering (“IPO”) in February 2022, which, together with additional funds that we have raised since then and funds we plan to raise during 2024, we believe will provide funding to enable us to progress our planned clinical trial program in our lead product, OmnImmune®, into 2024 and beyond. We have no firm arrangements in place for all the anticipated, required financing to be able to fund our operations during and beyond 2024 and otherwise to implement fully our business plan. If we are unable to continue our operations as planned, we may have to curtail some or all of our business plan and operations. In such case, investors will lose all or a portion of their investment.

We anticipate needing additional financing over the longer term to execute our business plan and fund operations, which additional financing may not be available on reasonable terms or at all.

The proceeds from our February 2022 IPO, together with additional capital raised since then and funds that we plan to continue to raise during 2024, are expected to provide capital to further develop our drug product candidates and fund our overall business plan until at least the end of 2024. We will require additional capital in the future to fully develop our technologies and potential products to the stage of a commercial launch. We cannot give now any indication of the amount of future funding that we will need or give any assurance that we will be able to obtain all the necessary funding that we may need. We may pursue additional funding through various financing sources, including the private and public sale of our equity and debt securities, licensing fees for our product candidates, joint ventures with capital partners and project type financing. We also may seek government-based financing, such as development and research grants. There can be no assurance that funds will be available on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. If financing is not available on satisfactory terms, we may be unable to pursue further our business plan and we may be unable to continue operations, in which case investors may lose their entire investment. Alternatively, we may consider changes in our business plan that might enable us to achieve aspects of our business objectives and lead to some commercial success with a smaller amount of capital, but we cannot assure that changes in our business plan will result in revenues or maintain value in an investment in the company.

On March 22, 2024, the Group had cash on hand of $1.7 million (£1.4 million), which will not be sufficient to enable the Group to meet the cash requirements required to enable it to conduct its business plan through the going concern period (being to April 1, 2025) (“Going Concern Period”). With existing resources, we expect to be able to fund current operations to May 2024.

Risks Related to Development, Clinical Testing and Commercialization of Our Investigational Therapies and Any Future Therapeutic Candidates

Our GD-T cell therapies represent a novel approach to cancer treatment that could result in heightened regulatory scrutiny, delays in clinical development, or delays in or our ability to achieve regulatory approval or commercialization of our therapeutic candidates.

Our products are novel cancer treatment approaches that carry inherent development risks. We are therefore constantly evaluating and adapting our therapeutic candidates following the results obtained during development work and the ongoing clinical trials. Further development, characterization and evaluation may be required, depending on the results obtained, in particular where such results suggest any potential safety risk for patients. The need to develop further assays, or to modify in any way the protocols related to our therapeutic candidates to improve safety or effectiveness, may delay a clinical program, regulatory approval or commercialization, if approved at all, of any therapeutic candidate. Consequently, this may have a material impact on our ability to receive milestone payments and/or generate revenues from our therapeutic candidates and raise equity capital. In addition, given the novelty of our GD-T cell therapeutic candidates, the end users and medical personnel require a substantial amount of education and training in their administration of our cell therapy. Regulatory authorities have very limited experience with commercial cell therapies for disease treatment. As a result, regulators may be more risk averse or require substantial dialogue and education as part of the normal regulatory approval process for each stage of development of our therapeutic candidates.

GD-T cell therapy creates significantly increased risk in terms of side-effect profile, ability to satisfy regulatory requirements associated with clinical trials, and the long-term efficacy of administered cells.

Development of a pharmaceutical or biologic therapy product has inherent risks based on differences in patient population and responses to therapy and treatment. The mechanism of action and impact on other systems and tissues within the human body following administration of GD-T cell therapy products is not completely understood, which means that we cannot predict the long-term effects of treatment with the GD-T cell therapy product. We are aware that certain patients may not respond to GD-T cell therapy and other patients may relapse. The percentage of the patient population in which these events may occur is unknown, but the inability of patients to respond and the possibility of relapse may impact our ability to conduct clinical trials, to obtain regulatory approvals, if at all, and to successfully commercialize our therapeutic products.

Our GD-T cell therapeutic candidates and their application are not fully scientifically understood and are still undergoing validation and investigation. The utility of our GD-T cell products may depend on persistence, potency, durability and infiltration capacity of the GD-T cells within a patient’s body. The level of persistence and the factors affecting such persistence, potency and infiltration capacity in patients are not completely understood, which presents an additional risk to the ongoing development and use of our therapeutic candidates. Certain steps involved in validating and carrying out testing require access to samples (for example tissue samples or cell samples) from third parties. Such samples may be obtained from universities or research institutions and will often be provided subject to satisfaction of certain terms and conditions. There can be no guarantee that we will be able to obtain samples in sufficient quantities to enable development of and use of the full preclinical safety testing program for CAR-T therapeutic candidates undergoing development. In addition, the terms under which such samples are available may not be acceptable to us or may restrict our use of any generated results or require us to make payments to third parties.

Our products, before they can be commercialized, will require regulatory approval.

We cannot commercialize a product candidate until the appropriate regulatory authorities have reviewed and approved the product candidate. Approval by the FDA, the MHRA and comparable other regulatory authorities is lengthy and unpredictable, and depends upon numerous factors. Approval policies, regulations, or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions, which may cause delays in the approval or the decision not to approve an application. We have not obtained commercialization regulatory approval for any product candidate, and it is possible that any of our product candidates will never obtain regulatory approval.

Applications for product candidates we may develop could fail to receive regulatory approval for many reasons, including but not limited to:

The lengthy approval process, as well as the unpredictability of the results of clinical trials, may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval to market a product candidate in the United States, the UK, the EU or elsewhere, which would significantly harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

We may encounter substantial delays in completing our clinical trials, which in turn will result in additional costs and may ultimately prevent successful or timely completion of the clinical development and commercialization of our product candidates.

We must conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the product candidates in humans before commercialization. Clinical testing is expensive, time-consuming and uncertain as to outcome. We cannot guarantee that any clinical trials will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing. Events that may prevent successful or timely completion of clinical development include:

We could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us or by regulators and related reviewing authorities such as IRBs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, by an independent Safety Review Board. Suspension or termination of a clinical trial might be due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, or failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a therapy. In addition, if we make manufacturing or formulation changes to our product candidates, we may need to conduct additional studies to bridge our modified product candidates to earlier versions. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our product candidate development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to obtain regulatory approvals, commence product sales and generate revenues. Any of these occurrences may significantly harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Manufacturing and administering our GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidates is complex, and we may encounter difficulties in production, particularly with respect to process development or scaling-up of our manufacturing capabilities. If we encounter such difficulties, our ability to supply of our GD-T cell therapeutic candidates for clinical trials or for commercial purposes could be delayed or stopped.

Manufacturing and administrating our GD-T cell-based therapeutics candidates is complex and highly regulated. The manufacture process of our GD-T cell-based therapeutics involves complex processes, including peripheral blood mononuclear cell isolation from leukapheresis material, stimulation of the GD-T cells, expansion of the cells to obtain a desired dose, and ultimately infusion of the cells to the patient’s body. On occasions the GD-T cell therapeutic could be genetically modified, which could involve manufacturing of lentiviral vectors containing the gene of our interest (for example Chimeric Antigen Receptor) and transducing the cells or a method such as electroporation or nucleofection of a plasmid containing the gene of interest to the cells. As a result of the complexities, our manufacturing and supply costs are likely to be higher than those in more traditional manufacturing processes and the manufacturing process is less reliable and more difficult to reproduce. Our manufacturing process is, and will be, susceptible to product loss or failure due to logistical issues, including manufacturing issues associated with the differences in patients’ white blood cells, interruptions in the manufacturing process, contamination, equipment or reagent failure, supplier error and variability in GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidate and patient characteristics. Even minor deviations from normal manufacturing processes could result in reduced production yields, product defects, and other supply disruptions. If microbial, viral or other contaminations are discovered in our GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidates or in the manufacturing facilities in which our GD-T cell based therapeutic candidates are made or administered, the manufacturing facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination. As our GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidates progress through preclinical programs and clinical trials towards approval and commercialization, it is expected that various aspects of the manufacturing and administration process will be altered in an effort to optimize processes and results.

We have identified some improvements to our manufacturing and administration processes, but these changes may not achieve the intended objectives, and could cause our GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidates to perform differently and affect the results of planned clinical trials or other future clinical trials. The changes may require amendments to be made to regulatory applications which may further delay the timeframes under which modified manufacturing processes can be used for any GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidate. For example, we are planning to introduce automated enclosed systems to our production process. This will require development work to ensure that these modifications do not alter the characteristics of the product. If the GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidate manufactured under the new process has a worse safety or efficacy profile than the prior investigational product, we may need to re-evaluate the use of that manufacturing process, which could significantly delay the progress of our clinical trials.

Developing a commercially viable process is a difficult and uncertain task and there are risks associated with scaling to the level required for advanced clinical trials or commercialization, including, among others, increased costs, potential problems with process scale-out, process reproducibility, stability issues, lot consistency, and timely availability of reagents or raw materials. We may ultimately be unable to reduce the expenses associated with our GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidates to levels that will allow us to achieve a profitable return on investment. If we are unable to demonstrate that our commercial scale product is comparable to the product used in clinical trials, we may not receive regulatory approval for that product without additional clinical trials. Even if we are successful, our manufacturing capabilities could be affected by increased costs, unexpected delays, equipment failures, labor shortages, natural disasters, power failures and numerous other factors that could prevent us from realizing the intended benefits of our manufacturing strategy, which in turn could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We may seek expedited approval in the European Union and United States for our therapeutic candidates, but we may not be able to obtain or maintain such designation.

The FDA and the European Medicines Agency, the EMA, have established programs to expedite drug development and regulatory review. The FDA has four main expedited programs: fast track (introduced in 1987), accelerated approval (1992), priority review (1992), and breakthrough therapy (2012). A priority review designation in North America will direct overall attention and resources to the evaluation of applications for drugs that, if approved, would be significant improvements in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions when compared to standard applications. Significant improvement may be demonstrated by the following examples:

We intend to seek breakthrough therapy designation for some or all of our therapeutic candidates, but there can be no assurance that we will receive breakthrough therapy designation. Additionally, other treatments from competing companies may obtain the designations and impact our ability to develop and commercialize our therapeutic candidates, which may adversely impact our business, financial condition or results of operation. We may also seek fast track designation. If a drug or biologic candidate is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition or disease and the drug demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition, the sponsor may apply for fast track designation. Under the fast track program, the sponsor of a new drug or biologic candidate may request that the FDA designate the candidate for a specific indication as a fast track drug or biologic concurrent with, or after, the submission of the IND for the candidate. The FDA must determine if the drug or biologic candidate qualifies for fast track designation within 60 days of receipt of the sponsor’s request. Even if we do apply for and receive fast track designation, we may not experience a faster development, review or approval process compared to conventional FDA procedures. The FDA may withdraw fast track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. We may also seek accelerated approval for products that have obtained fast track designation. Under the FDA’s fast track and accelerated approval programs, the FDA may approve a drug or biologic for a serious or life-threatening illness that provides meaningful therapeutic benefit to patients over existing treatments based upon a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. For drugs granted accelerated approval, post-marketing confirmatory trials have been required to describe the anticipated effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. These confirmatory trials must be completed with due diligence.

The EMA has three programs, the accelerated assessment (2005), conditional marketing authorization (2006), and the Priority Medicines (PRIME) scheme (2016). These programs are intended to prioritize the most important medicines for faster access by patients. As part of its marketing authorization process, the EMA may grant conditional marketing authorizations for certain categories of medicinal products on the basis of less complete data than is normally required, when doing so may meet unmet medical needs of patients and may serve the interest of public health. In these cases, it is possible for the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, the CHMP, to recommend the granting of a marketing authorization, subject to certain specific obligations to be reviewed annually, which is referred to as a conditional marketing authorization. This may apply to medicinal products for human use that fall under the jurisdiction of the EMA, including those that aim at the treatment, the prevention, or the medical diagnosis of seriously debilitating diseases or life-threatening diseases and those designated as orphan medicinal products. A conditional marketing authorization may be granted when the CHMP finds that, although comprehensive clinical data referring to the safety and efficacy of the medicinal product have not been supplied, the risk-benefit balance of the medicinal product is positive. The granting of a conditional marketing authorization is restricted to situations in which only the clinical part of the application is not yet fully complete. Incomplete preclinical or quality data may only be accepted if duly justified and only in the case of a product intended to be used in emergency situations in response to public-health threats. Conditional marketing authorizations are valid for one year, on a renewable basis. The holder will be required to complete ongoing trials or to conduct new trials with a view to confirming that the benefit-risk balance is positive. In addition, specific obligations may be imposed in relation to the collection of pharmacovigilance data. Granting a conditional marketing authorization allows medicines to reach patients with unmet medical needs earlier than might otherwise be the case and will ensure that additional data on a product are generated, submitted, assessed and acted upon. Although we may seek a conditional marketing authorization for our therapeutic candidates, the EMA or CHMP may ultimately not agree that the requirements for conditional marketing authorization have been satisfied and hence delay the commercialization of our therapeutic candidates.

In the European Union, accelerated assessment can reduce the timeframe for EMA’s CHMP to review a marketing-authorization application. Applications may be eligible for accelerated assessment if the CHMP decides the product is of major interest for public health and therapeutic innovation. The evaluation of a marketing-authorization application can take up to 210 days. However, the CHMP can reduce the timeframe to 150 days if the applicant can provide sufficient justification for an accelerated assessment. The Priority Medicines (PRIME) scheme was introduced by the EMA in 2016 to support the development of medicines addressing unmet medical needs which offer a therapeutic advantage over existing treatments. To be accepted in the PRIME scheme, the treatments must meet the eligibility criteria for accelerated assessment including a strongly substantiated mechanism of action, supportive preclinical data, and first-in-human tolerance data. PRIME has been compared to the U.S. Breakthrough Therapy Designation.

Withdrawal of expedited approval will delay trials and likely increase cost.

The FDA or EMA may withdraw expedited approval of our therapeutic candidate or indication approved under the accelerated approval pathway if, for example:

Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of our therapeutic candidates in one jurisdiction does not mean that we will be successful in obtaining regulatory approval of our therapeutic candidates in other jurisdictions.

We plan on submit marketing applications in multiple jurisdictions and countries, including the UK, the EU and the United States. Regulatory authorities in each jurisdiction have requirements for approval of therapeutic candidates with which we must comply prior to marketing in those jurisdictions. Obtaining regulatory approvals and compliance with regulatory requirements of multiple jurisdictions and countries could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our therapeutic candidates in certain countries. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets and/or receive applicable marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our therapeutic candidates will be harmed.

Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of our therapeutic candidates in one jurisdiction does not guarantee that we will be able to obtain or maintain regulatory approval in any other jurisdiction, while a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one jurisdiction may have a negative effect on the regulatory approval process in others. For example, even if the FDA grants marketing approval of our key products in the United States, comparable regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions must also approve the manufacturing, marketing and promotion of our products in those countries. Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and may require additional preclinical programs or clinical trials. In many jurisdictions a therapeutic candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that jurisdiction. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our therapeutic candidates is also subject to approval.

We may face difficulty in enrolling patients in our clinical trials.

We may find it difficult to enroll patients in our clinical trials. For example, in our TCB-001 clinical trial we experienced a high screen failure rate. Identifying and qualifying patients, including testing of patients for their GD-T cells’ proliferation capacity, to participate in clinical trials of our therapeutic candidates, are critical to our success. The timing of our current and future clinical trials depends on the speed at which we can recruit patients to participate in testing our therapeutic candidates. If patients are unwilling to participate in our trial(s) because of negative publicity from adverse reactions or for other reasons, including competitive clinical trials for similar patient populations, the timeline for recruiting patients, conducting trials and obtaining regulatory approval of potential products may be delayed or prevented. These delays could result in increased costs, delays in advancing our product development, delays in testing the effectiveness of our technology or termination of the clinical trials altogether. We may not be able to identify, recruit and enroll a sufficient number of patients, or those with required or desired characteristics to achieve sufficient diversity in a given trial in order to complete our clinical trials in a timely manner. Patient enrolment is affected by factors including:

If we have difficulty enrolling a sufficient number of patients to conduct our clinical trials as planned, we may need to delay, limit or terminate ongoing or planned clinical trials, any of which would have an adverse effect on our business.

The outcome of clinical trials is uncertain and our clinical trials may fail to demonstrate adequately the safety and efficacy of any of our T cell therapeutic candidates, which would prevent or delay regulatory approval and commercialization.

There is a risk in any clinical trial that side effects from our therapeutic candidates will require a hold on, or termination of, our clinical program(s) or further adjustments to our clinical program(s) in order to progress our therapeutic candidates. Our T cell therapeutic candidates will require evidence that they are safe before permitting clinical trials to commence and evidence that the therapeutic candidates are safe and effective before granting any regulatory approval. In particular, because our therapeutic candidates are subject to regulation as biological products, we will need to demonstrate that they are safe, pure and potent for use in each target indication. The therapeutic candidate must demonstrate an acceptable risk versus benefit profile in its intended patient population and for its intended use. The risk/benefit profile required for product licensure will vary depending on these factors and may include not only the ability to show tumor shrinkage, but also adequate duration of response, a delay in the progression of the disease and/or an improvement in survival. For example, response rates from the use of our therapeutic candidates will not be sufficient to obtain regulatory approval unless we can also show an adequate duration of response.

We may not be able to submit INDs, or the foreign equivalent outside of the United States, to continue our CAR-T clinical trials.

We are currently conducting preclinical development of our CAR-T therapeutic candidates. Progression of our CAR-T therapeutic candidates from pre-clinical to clinical development (first-in-human, phase 1) is inherently risky and dependent on the results obtained in preclinical programs, the results of other clinical programs and results of third-party programs that utilize common components used for production and administration of our therapeutic candidates. If results are not available when expected or problems are identified during therapy development, we may experience significant delays in development of pipeline products and of existing clinical programs, which may impact our ability to receive regulatory approval. This may also impact our ability to achieve certain financial milestones and the expected timeframes to market any of our therapeutic candidates. Failure to submit further INDs or the foreign equivalent and commence additional clinical programs will significantly limit our opportunity to generate revenue.

Our research and development efforts may not result in the progression of our product candidates into clinical trials.

Our research and development efforts and our selection of the product candidates to pursue remain subject to all of the risks associated with the development of new treatment modalities. Development of the underlying technology and appropriate assay development may be affected by unanticipated technical or other problems, among other development and research issues, and the possible insufficiency of funds needed in order to complete development of these products. Safety, regulatory and efficacy issues, clinical hurdles or challenges also may result in delays and cause us to incur additional expenses that will increase our need for capital and result in additional losses. If we cannot complete, or if we experience significant delays in developing our medical 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 will need to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, which is time consuming, costly and complicated. We may not obtain regulatory approval.

We cannot commercialize a product candidate until the appropriate regulatory authorities have reviewed and approved the product candidate. Approval by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities is lengthy and unpredictable, and depends upon numerous factors. Approval policies, regulations, or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions, which may cause delays in the approval or the decision not to approve an application. We have not obtained regulatory approval for any product candidate, and it is possible that any of our product candidates will never obtain regulatory approval.

Applications for product candidates we may develop could fail to receive regulatory approval for many reasons. For example, under FDA regulation, approval may not be obtained for many reasons such as:

The lengthy approval process, as well as the unpredictability of the results of clinical trials, may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval to market a product candidate in the United States or elsewhere, which would significantly harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

We are heavily dependent on the success of our lead product candidate, OmnImmune®, and our subsequent product development program, If we are unable to successfully complete clinical development, obtain regulatory approval for, or commercialize these products, or experience delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

Our future success is dependent on our ability to successfully develop, obtain regulatory approval for, and commercialize our aforementioned lead product candidate which is in its clinical development phase. Before we can generate any revenues from sales of products, we will be required to conduct additional clinical development and conduct longer-term clinical trials and, if our clinical trial of these products is successful, we will be required to seek and obtain regulatory approval, secure adequate manufacturing supply to support larger clinical trials and commercial sales and build a commercial organization, or to work with commercialization partners. Further, the success of these products will depend on patent and trade secret protection, acceptance of these products by patients, the medical community and third-party payers, its ability to compete with other therapies, healthcare coverage and reimbursement, and maintenance of an acceptable safety profile following approval, among other factors. If we do not achieve any of these factors in a timely manner or at all, we could experience significant delays or an inability to successfully commercialize our products which would materially harm our business.

Laboratory conditions differ from clinical conditions and commercial conditions, which could affect the effectiveness of our potential products. Failures to effectively move from laboratory to the field would harm our business.

Observations and developments that may be achievable under laboratory circumstances may not be replicated in commercial settings or in the use of any of the proposed products in the field. The failure of our product candidates under development or other future product candidates to be able to be tested, approved and manufactured in available manufacturing facilities or to be able to meet the demands of users in the field would harm our business.

Results of earlier studies may not be predictive of future clinical trial results, and initial studies may not establish an adequate safety or efficacy profile for our drugs and other product candidates that we may pursue to justify proceeding to advanced clinical trials or an application for regulatory approval.

The results of preclinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials, and interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. Additionally, any positive results generated in our Phase 1b/2a clinical trials in adults would not ensure that we will achieve similar results in larger, pivotal clinical trials or in clinical trials in general populations. In addition, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to various interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy despite having progressed through nonclinical studies and initial clinical trials. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or adverse safety profiles, notwithstanding promising results in earlier studies, and we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks. Even if early-stage clinical trials are successful, we may need to conduct additional clinical trials for product candidates in additional patient populations or under different treatment conditions before we are able to seek approvals from the FDA and regulatory authorities outside the United States to market and sell these product candidates. Our failure to demonstrate the required characteristics to support marketing approval for our product candidates in any ongoing or future clinical trials would substantially harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

We manufacture and test all our therapeutic candidates in-house, and may experience logistic issues.

The manufacture, testing and release of TCB’s cell therapies for clinical trials may not meet with the regulatory requirements and result in the delay of clinical trials. Logistical issues which may prevent timely completion of manufacture and testing include:

We conduct and manage clinical studies using internal staff trained to perform such studies and loss of these staff may delay our clinical program.

We are highly dependent upon the principal members of our management team and the members of our scientific team. These people have significant experience and knowledge within our operational sector, and the loss of any team member could impair our ability to design, identify, and develop clinical trials, new intellectual property and new scientific or product ideas.

We expect to operate in a highly competitive, ever-evolving, market.

The broader market for our products is becoming more focused and potentially more competitive. Over time, we believe this field will become subject to more rapid change and new drugs, therapies and other products will emerge. We may not be able to compete effectively against these companies or their products. We may find ourselves in competition with companies that have competitive advantages over us, such as:

Many of our competitors, either alone or with their strategic collaborators, have substantially greater financial, technical and human resources than we do. Accordingly, our competitors may be more successful than we are in obtaining approval for treatments and achieving widespread market acceptance and may render our treatments obsolete or non-competitive. Mergers and acquisitions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical study sites and patient registration for clinical studies, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies.

Rapidly changing medical technology within the life sciences could make the product candidates that we are developing obsolete.

The medical industry is characterized by rapid and significant medical technological and therapy changes, frequent new product candidates and product introductions and enhancements and evolving industry standards. Our future success will depend on our ability to continually develop and then improve the product candidates that we design and to develop and introduce new product candidates that address the evolving needs of the physicians and patients on a timely and cost-effective basis. Any new product candidates and products developed by us may not be accepted in the intended markets. Our inability to gain market acceptance of new products could harm our future operating results.

The market opportunities for certain of our product candidates may be small, due to the fact that the products may be limited to those patients who are ineligible for or have failed prior treatments, and our projections regarding the size of the addressable market may be incorrect.

Cancer therapies are sometimes characterized as first line, second line or third line, and the FDA often approves new therapies initially only for third line use. When blood cancers are detected, they are treated with first line of therapy with the intention of curing the cancer. This generally consists of chemotherapy, radiation, antibody drugs, tumor targeted small molecules, or a combination of these. In addition, sometimes a bone marrow transplantation can be added to the first line therapy after the combination chemotherapy is given. If the patient’s cancer relapses, then they are given a second line or third line therapy, which can consist of more chemotherapy, radiation, antibody drugs, tumor targeted small molecules, or a combination of these, or bone marrow transplant. Generally, the higher the line of therapy, the lower the chance of a cure. With third or higher line, the goal of the therapy in the treatment of lymphoma and myeloma is to control the growth of the tumor and extend the life of the patient, as a cure is unlikely to happen. Patients are generally referred to clinical trials in these situations.

Our projections of both the number of people who have the cancers we are targeting, as well as the size of the patient population subset of people with these cancers in a position to receive first, second, third and fourth line therapy and who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates, are based on our beliefs and estimates. These estimates have been derived from a variety of sources, including scientific literature, surveys of clinics, patient foundations, or market research and may prove to be incorrect. Further, new studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these cancers. The number of patients may turn out to be fewer than expected. Additionally, the potentially addressable patient population for our product candidates may be limited or may not be amenable to treatment with our product candidates. Even if we obtain significant market share for our product candidates, because the potential target populations are small, we may never achieve significant revenues without obtaining regulatory approval for additional indications or as part of earlier lines of therapy. 

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

We depend and will continue to depend upon independent investigators and collaborators, such as universities, medical institutions, CROs (“Contract Research Organizations”) and strategic partners to support our clinical trials under agreements with the Company.

We negotiate budgets and contracts with CROs and study sites, which may result in delays to our development timelines and increased costs. We will rely heavily on third parties over the course of our clinical trials, and we control only certain aspects of their activities. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our studies is conducted in accordance with applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and its reliance on third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. TCB and these third parties are required to comply with GCPs, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by regulatory authorities for product candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we or any of these third parties fail to comply with applicable GCP regulations, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure that, upon inspection, such regulatory authorities will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with the GCP regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with biologic product produced under cGMPs and will require a large number of test patients. Our failure or any failure by these third parties to comply with these regulations or to recruit a sufficient number of patients may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process. Moreover, our business may be implicated if any of these third parties violates federal or state fraud and abuse or false claims laws and regulations or healthcare privacy and security laws.

Any third parties supporting our clinical trials are and will not be our employees and, except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such third parties, we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our ongoing preclinical, clinical and nonclinical programs. These third parties may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical studies or other drug development activities, which could affect their performance on our behalf. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols or regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to complete development of, obtain regulatory approval of or successfully commercialize our product candidates. As a result, our financial results and the commercial prospects for our product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed.

If any of our relationships with trial sites, or any CRO that we may use in the future, terminates, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative trial sites or CROs or do so on commercially reasonable terms. Switching or adding third parties to conduct our clinical trials will involve substantial cost and require extensive management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new third party commences work. As a result, delays occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet its desired clinical development timelines.

We do not have any current sales, marketing, commercial manufacturing and distribution capabilities or arrangements, and will need to create these as we move towards commercialization of our products.

We do not yet have commercial sales, marketing, manufacturing and distribution capabilities or arrangements. We will need to develop all of the foregoing or partner with organizations who have expertise in all the foregoing. We do not have any corporate experience in establishing these commercial sized capabilities. We believe that setting up the commercialization aspects of a company such as ours, in our field, will take a substantial amount of capital and time. Therefore, we may seek development and marketing partners and license our drug technologies or product candidates to others in order to avoid our having to provide the marketing, manufacturing and distribution capabilities within our organization. There can be no assurance that we will find any development and marketing partners or companies that are interested in licensing our drug technology or any of our product candidates or products. If we are unable to establish and maintain adequate sales, marketing, manufacturing and distribution capabilities, independently or with others, we will not be able to generate product revenue, and may not become profitable.

We may rely on third parties to manufacture our clinical product supplies, and we may have to rely on third parties to produce and process our product candidates, if approved.

Although to date, we have used our internal capabilities to manufacture clinical trial supplies, we do not yet have sufficient information to reliably estimate the cost of commercially manufacturing and processing of our product candidates. The actual cost to manufacture and process our product candidates could materially and adversely affect the commercial viability of our product candidates. As a result, we may never be able to develop a commercially viable product.

Our manufacturing plant is located in Scotland and as we develop clinical trials outside the UK and in particular into the USA we anticipate that we will rely on a limited number of third-party manufacturers for commercial production, but this will expose us to the following risks.

Contract manufacturers would also be subject to the same risks we face in developing our own manufacturing capabilities, as described above. Each of these risks could delay our clinical trials, the regulatory approval, if any, of our product candidates or the commercialization of our product candidates or result in higher costs or deprive us of potential product revenue. In addition, we will rely on third parties to perform release tests on our product candidates prior to delivery to patients. If these tests are not appropriately done and test data are not reliable, patients could be put at risk of serious harm.

Cell-based therapies rely on the availability of specialty materials, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all.

Our product candidates require specialized materials, including viral vectors that deliver the targeting moiety (CAR) and other genes to the product candidate. We currently manufacture some of our requirements through contract manufacturers, some of which are manufactured by companies with limited resources and experience to support a commercial product, and the suppliers may not be able to deliver materials to our specifications. In addition, those suppliers normally support blood-based hospital businesses and generally do not have the capacity to support commercial products manufactured under cGMP by biopharmaceutical firms. The suppliers may be ill-equipped to support our needs, especially in non-routine circumstances like an FDA inspection or medical crisis, such as widespread contamination. We also do not have contracts with many of these suppliers, and we may not be able to contract with them on acceptable terms or at all. Accordingly, we may experience delays in receiving key materials to support clinical or commercial manufacturing.

In addition, some materials utilized in the manufacture of our candidates are currently available from a single supplier, or a small number of suppliers. For example, principal suppliers for the purchase of equipment and reagents critical for the manufacture of our product candidates include Cytiva (Global Life Sciences Solutions Operations UK Ltd), Wilson Wolf Manufacturing Corporation, Octapharma AG, Sexton Biotechnologies, Miltenyi Biotech, Thermo Fisher Scientific and other suppliers. We cannot be sure that these suppliers will remain in business or that they will not be purchased by one of our competitors or another company that is not interested in continuing to produce these materials for our intended purpose. In addition, the lead time needed to establish a relationship with a new supplier can be lengthy, and we may experience delays in meeting demand in the event that we must switch to a new supplier. The time and effort to qualify a new supplier could result in additional costs, diversion of resources or reduced manufacturing yields, any of which would negatively impact our operating results. Further, we may be unable to enter into agreements with a new supplier on commercially reasonable terms, which could have a material adverse impact on our business.

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

We face an inherent risk of product liability exposure related to the testing of our product candidates in human clinical trials and will face an even greater risk if we commercially sell any products that we may develop. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against claims that our product candidates or products caused injuries, we will incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in, for example:

We currently hold £5.0 million in clinical study liability annual insurance cover for each clinical study, with a per patient limit of £5.0 million, which may not be adequate to cover all liabilities that we may incur. We may need to increase our insurance coverage as we expand our clinical trials or if we commence commercialization of our product candidates. Insurance coverage is increasingly expensive. We may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in an amount adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise.