UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20549

FORM 10-K

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018

OR

For the transition period from              to             

Commission File Number 001-33038

ZIOPHARM Oncology, Inc.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

(617) 259-1970

(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: None

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the past 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 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 if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See definition of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerate filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

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 is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).    Yes  ☐ No  ☒

The aggregate market value of the registrant’s common stock held by non-affiliates was $339,372,440 as of June 29, 2018 (the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter), based on a total of 112,374,980 shares of common stock held by non-affiliates and a closing price of $3.02 as reported on the Nasdaq Capital Market on June 29, 2018. For purposes of this computation, all officers, directors, and 10% beneficial owners of the registrant are deemed to be affiliates. Such determination should not be deemed to be an admission that such officers, directors or 10% beneficial owners are, in fact, affiliates of the registrant.

As of February 21, 2019, there were 162,294,494 shares of the registrant’s common stock, $0.001 par value per share, outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE:

Portions of the definitive proxy statement for the registrant’s 2019 annual meeting of stockholders, which is to be filed within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Form 10-K, to the extent described in Part III.

ZIOPHARM Oncology, Inc.

ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

All trademarks, trade names and service marks appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are the property of their respective owners

1

Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

This Annual Report on Form 10-K, or Annual Report, contains forward-looking statements that are based on management’s current beliefs and assumptions and on information currently available to management. 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 words such as: “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “expect,” “forecast,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “project,” “target,” “will” and other words and terms of similar meaning.

These statements involve risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results, levels of activity, performance or achievements to be materially different from the information expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. Although we believe that we have a reasonable basis for each forward-looking statement contained in this Annual Report, we caution you that these statements are based on a combination of facts and factors currently known by us and our projections of the future, about which we cannot be certain. Forward-looking statements in this Annual Report include, but are not limited to, statements about:

2

Any forward-looking statements in this Annual Report reflect our current views with respect to future events and with respect to our future financial performance, and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. Factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from current expectations include, among other things, those described under Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report. Given these uncertainties, you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Except as required by law, we assume no obligation to update or revise these forward-looking statements for any reason, even if new information becomes available in the future.

Unless the context requires otherwise, references in this Annual Report to “Ziopharm,” the “Company,” “we,” “us” and “our” refer to Ziopharm Oncology, Inc. and its subsidiaries.

3

PART I

Item 1. Business

BUSINESS OVERVIEW

We are a biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering, acquiring, developing and commercializing next generation immunotherapy platforms that leverage cell- and gene-based therapies to treat patients with cancer. We are developing two immuno-oncology platform technologies that utilize the patient’s immune system by employing novel, controlled gene expression and innovative cell engineering technologies to designed deliver safe, effective, and scalable cell- and viral-based therapies for the treatment of multiple cancer types. Our first platform is referred to as Sleeping Beauty and is based on the genetic engineering of immune cells using a non-viral transposon/transposase system to stably reprogram T cells outside of the body for subsequent infusion. Our second platform is termed Controlled IL-12, which is designed to stimulate expression of interleukin 12, or IL-12, a master regulator of the immune system, in a controlled and safe manner to focus the patient’s immune system to attack cancer cells. We believe these two platforms will provide unique and powerful solutions to address the issues associated with (1) treating solid tumors with heterogeneous and unknown antigens, and (2) providing cost-effective scalable manufacturing solutions for T-cell receptor T-cell, or TCR⁺ T, and chimeric antigen receptor, or CAR T-cell, or CAR⁺ T, therapies for solid tumors and hematologic malignancies. We expect programs from our two platform technologies to be in the clinic in 2019.

Immuno-oncology, which typically utilizes a patient’s own immune system to treat cancer, is one of the most actively pursued areas of research by biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies today. Cancer cells often contain new mutated proteins and may overexpress other proteins usually found in the body. The immune system typically recognizes unusual or aberrant cell protein expression and eliminates these cells in an efficient process known as immune surveillance. Central to immune surveillance are types of white blood cells known as T cells. In healthy individuals, T cells can identify and kill infected or abnormal cells, including cancer cells. Malignant cells develop the ability to evade immune surveillance, which is a key factor in their growth, spread, and persistence.

Our approach to immuno-oncology entails the application of engineering principles to biological systems for designing and constructing new biological systems or redesigning and modifying existing biological systems. This approach aims to engineer gene-based programs to modify cellular function to achieve a desired biological outcome, such as the survival of infused T cells, production of IL-12, or the safe elimination of cancerous cells.

Using our Sleeping Beauty platform, we are developing TCR⁺ T therapies, initially to target solid tumors. Our T cell receptor, or TCR, program designs and manufactures T cells that target antigens unique to each patient, thereby delivering truly personalized therapy that can attack an individual patient’s cancer. The Sleeping Beauty system uses DNA plasmids to reprogram T cells to express introduced TCRs on a patient-by-patient basis (addressing inter-tumor heterogeneity) and to express more than one TCR for each patient (addressing intra-tumor heterogeneity). We believe the scalability of our approach provides a competitive advantage to alternative viral-based approaches to T-cell manufacturing. Under our Cooperative Research and Development Agreement, or CRADA, the National Cancer Institute, or the NCI, intends to initiate a Phase 1 clinical trial in patients with a variety of solid tumors using the Sleeping Beauty platform to genetically modify T-cells to target patient-specific neoantigens in mid-2019. The clinical trial will be under the direction of Steven A. Rosenberg, M.D., Ph.D., Chief of the Surgery Branch at the NCI.

We are also developing CAR⁺ T therapies using our Sleeping Beauty platform. This CAR⁺ T program seeks to solve the complex and costly manufacturing limitations of existing CAR⁺ T therapies that we believe will continue limiting their commercial potential. We believe using DNA plasmids in the Sleeping Beauty system to express CAR and our proprietary membrane-bound interleukin 15, or mbIL15, in resting T cells obtained from peripheral blood will enable infused T cells to propagate within the patient to target leukemia and lymphoma, thus avoiding the need to numerically expand T cells for weeks in bioreactors before patient administration. We

4

expect the lower cost of DNA plasmids compared with the virus used by other CAR⁺ T programs, together with the avoidance of lengthy ex vivo manufacturing, will reduce the cost and complexity of manufacturing CAR⁺ T cells. These technologies should enable T cells to be infused within two days of gene transfer in a process we refer to as rapid personalized manufacture, or RPM. We are advancing our CAR⁺ T therapies in the United States in collaboration with The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, or MD Anderson, to target CD19 on malignant B cells. In 2019, we expect to initiate a Phase 1 clinical trial in the United States of our third-generation Sleeping Beauty modified CAR⁺ T cells, co-expressing CAR and mbIL15, manufactured and reinfused into the patient in less than two days from gene transfer. In addition, in a joint venture with TriArm Therapeutics, Ltd., or TriArm, we are forming Eden BioCell, Ltd., or Eden BioCell, to lead clinical development and commercialization of Sleeping Beauty-generated CD19-specific CAR-T therapies in the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan and Korea. Eden BioCell will be owned equally by us and TriArm and the parties will share decision-making authority. TriArm has committed up to $35.0 million to this joint venture and will manage all clinical development to execute trials in the territory. We expect our joint venture with TriArm to close in the first half of 2019 and we may evaluate additional programs to pursue in this joint venture.

Our Controlled IL-12 platform uses virotherapy based on an engineered replication-incompetent adenovirus (Ad-RTS-hIL-12) plus veledimex as a gene delivery system to conditionally produce IL-12, a potent, naturally occurring anti-cancer protein, to treat patients with solid tumors where a specific target is unknown, including brain cancer. Our Controlled IL-12 platform allows us to deliver IL-12 in a tunable dose, which we believe is critical for this potent cytokine. In a Phase 1 clinical trial of patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme, or rGBM, a subset of patients (n=6) who received low-dose steroids along with 20 mg of veledimex plus Ad-RTS-hIL-12, achieved 17.8 months median overall survival, or OS, compared with five to eight months OS established in historical controls. Thirty-six additional patients with rGBM have been recruited into a sub study designed to encourage use of low-dose steroids and 20 mg veledimex to further understand the potential of Controlled IL-12 as a monotherapy. We are also developing our Controlled IL-12 platform in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors. In June 2018, we began enrolling patients with rGBM to receive Ad-RTS-hIL-12 plus veledimex in combination with OPDIVO^® (nivolumab) in a Phase 1 dose-escalation trial. In November 2018, we announced a clinical supply agreement with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Regeneron, to evaluate Ad-RTS-hIL-12 plus veledimex in combination with Regeneron’s PD-1 antibody Libtayo^® (cemiplimab-rwlc) for the treatment of patients with rGBM. We expect to initiate a Phase 2 clinical trial in the first half of 2019 in approximately 30 patients with rGBM to measure preliminary safety and efficacy of Ad-RTS-hIL-12 plus veledimex in combination with Libtayo.

OUR STRATEGY

Our goal is to be a leading cell therapy company focused on discovering and developing TCR and CAR⁺ T therapies where the target of these T cells is known. We also seek to develop our Controlled IL-12 platform as both a monotherapy and in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors. We believe our ability to control IL-12 will allow us to use this platform to treat multiple types of cancers when the tumor target is unknown.

Key elements of our strategy include:

5

SLEEPING BEAUTY PLATFORM TECHNOLOGY

We are pursuing non-viral genetic engineering technologies to develop novel CAR⁺ T and TCR therapies. The platform we have licensed from MD Anderson uses the Sleeping Beauty non-viral genetic modification system to generate and characterize new CAR and TCR designs in T cells.

Limitations of Existing Approaches to Manufacturing T-Cell Therapies

T cells are a type of white blood cell that play a central role in the immune system. T cells are involved in both detecting and killing infected or abnormal cells, such as cancer cells, as well as coordinating immune responses. In recent years, companies have begun developing therapies that include T cells engineered specifically for each patient. Manufacturing such products is separated into discrete steps and typically undertaken at a centralized facility. The production time varies from approximately two to four weeks with additional time needed for quality control requirements. Manufacturing based on viral transduction, propagation and shipping has many drawbacks:

6

We believe these disadvantages limit the commercial potential of CAR-T therapies and will restrict companies from commercializing effective TCR therapies.

Sleeping Beauty Solution

The Sleeping Beauty system is a gene transfer method that utilizes a transposase enzyme to cut and paste donor transposon DNA from introduced plasmid into chromosomes using a process called transposition. The system can be used to deliver genes to a variety of cell types including human T cells. Sleeping Beauty transposons appear to integrate in a random distribution at thymine-adenine, or TA, dinucleotide sites, making them less likely to cause off-target effects when compared to other transposons and viral gene delivery methods.

We use the Sleeping Beauty system to express TCRs that target patients’ antigens as well as CARs that enable a T cell to recognize specific proteins or antigens that are present on the surface of other cells. Our third generation CAR⁺ T therapy uses the Sleeping Beauty system to co-express our proprietary mbIL15 and a kill switch along with the CAR. Interleukin 15 (IL-15) has a variety of apparently beneficial effects as it is considered a pro-survival cytokine that promotes survival of T cells. Our pre-clinical data suggest that incorporating mbIL15 into a CAR⁺ T therapy enhances in vivo persistence of the CAR⁺ T cell.

We believe our Sleeping Beauty platform has several advantages compared with the viral gene transfer technologies used by other CAR-T and TCR companies:

7

SLEEPING BEAUTY TCR PROGRAM

Background

Each T cell has a unique alpha/beta TCR and an ability to rapidly increase in numbers when the TCR interrogates a target and detects a threat. A TCR can recognize cancer cells as a threat as the receptor docks with a specialized set of molecules on the cancer cell surface called the major histocompatibility complex, or MHC. The MHC reveals the health of a cell based on the loading of peptides (processed protein), which then await examination by unique TCRs on populations of T cells. Two types of MHC, Class I and Class II, are interrogated by TCRs on T cells. Class I molecules activate CD8⁺ T cells which have evolved an ability to be efficient killers. Class II molecules activate CD4⁺ T cells which help coordinate an efficient immune response. In each person, there are both many different TCR structures and many different MHC structures. TCRs within each person are adapted to work with their own MHC structures or alleles. For a T cell to recognize and destroy a tumor cell, the TCR must recognize the foreign antigen in the context of MHC and then be activated to deepen the engagement to kill the cell. This is different than CARs, which directly recognize antigens, such as CD19 on the surface of malignant B cells, without the need for presentation by MHC.

Genes in cancer cells can lead to the production of proteins, which are then processed by the cell into protein fragments known as peptides. When these peptides are presented to T cells by MHC, by either tumor cells or antigen presenting cells, and they result in T-cell activation, they are known as antigens. When these presented peptides are derived from proteins which are in turn expressed from genes that are mutated only in tumor cells, they are known as neoantigens. Tumor cells presenting neoantigens via MHC are targets for T cells. T cells can recognize and kill neoantigen-presenting cancer cells and effect a positive feedback loop to heighten the immune response.

The immune system avoids targeting the body’s own healthy cells principally through processes known as immune tolerance by which T cells do not respond to MHCs containing peptides from normal proteins and therefore avoid targeting healthy cells for destruction. The recognition by the TCR of peptide presented by the MHC is a vital immune mechanism that allows the body both to respond against foreign threats, including cancer, as well as to avoid targeting the body’s own healthy cells.

Tumors utilize a variety of strategies to evade and suppress the host immune system. This renders T cells residing within the tumor, referred to as tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, or TIL, ineffective and, despite expressing tumor-specific TCRs, unable to recycle their effector functions to eliminate tumor. To overcome immune suppression, “fresh” T cells are needed, such as those found in the peripheral blood. However, these circulating T cells do not typically express tumor-specific TCRs in sufficient numbers. We seek to address this problem by genetically modifying peripheral blood-derived T cells to express TCRs with specificity to tumor-derived antigens, especially neoantigens, and propagating them to sufficient numbers prior to administration.

8

The figure below describes how T-cell recognition of genetic mutations leads to the killing of tumor cells.

Targeting Neoantigens

Neoantigens are encoded by tumor-specific mutated genes that are often unique to each patient. During cancer initiation and progression, tumor cells acquire mutations in naturally-occurring genes that are either responsible for transformation, known as driver mutations, or are a byproduct of the genomic instability that accompanies cancer formation, known as passenger mutations.

Several companies are pursuing “public” antigens that are encoded within a patient’s normal germline, such as PRAME, MAGE series, and NY-ESO-1. Targeting these antigens when they occur in tumors typically enables a library of pre-assembled TCRs to be created as proteins from these germline targets can be shared within cancer types between patients. We believe there are several drawbacks to relying solely on this approach:

We believe the superior approach is to genetically modify T cells to target each patient’s neoantigens. This requires a “personal” approach to T-cell therapy in which the introduced TCRs recognize the neoantigens of a patient’s tumor. These neoantigens can be driver mutations and, therefore, the cancer cell relies upon their presence rendering it less likely the tumor can escape and thus relapse from this form of targeted T-cell therapy. We believe that neoantigen-targeted therapies will improve patient outcomes, particularly for patients with solid tumors.

9

There are three essential steps in creating a T-cell therapy targeting personalized neoantigens:

The process for the production and infusion of Sleeping Beauty TCR-modified T cells is based on the electro-transfer of DNA plasmids containing coding for TCR(s) recognizing one or more neoantigens into T cells derived from a patient’s peripheral blood. The TCR is sequenced from TIL responding to the targeted neoantigens. Following electroporation, the genetically modified T cells are propagated to large numbers based on the “rapid expansion protocol” which is a technology that has been shown to generate T cells that can recognize and eliminate solid tumors. We believe the use of circulating T cells, rather than TIL, will improve the T cell’s ability to kill tumor cells because these lymphocytes are generally “young” and can proliferate and survive in vivo to provide anti-tumor effects.

To be successful, genetically modified T cells targeting one or more neoantigens will need to address the fact that (1) among a population of patients, not all tumors express the targeted neoantigen, referred to as inter-tumor heterogeneity, and (2) within a single patient, not all tumor cells express the targeted antigen, referred to as

10

intra-tumor heterogeneity. Inter-tumor heterogeneity limits the number of recipients that are eligible to receive a treatment and intra-tumor heterogeneity creates the risk of antigen-escape variants, increasing the likelihood of cancer relapse. As a result, we believe companies developing T-cell therapies targeting neoantigens must address both inter- and intra-tumor heterogeneity.

Clinical Development of TCR

We believe that a non-viral platform represents the only commercially feasible way of manufacturing neoantigen therapies due to the obstacles presented by inter-tumor heterogeneity and intra-tumor heterogeneity. In 2017, we entered into a CRADA with the NCI for the development of adoptive cell transfer-based immunotherapies to treat solid tumors.

The process used by the NCI under the CRADA, and the process we expect to use the future, includes three-linked parts. The first is identifying one or more neoantigens that underlie the changes from a normal to a malignant cell. The second is the identification of one or more TCRs that recognize the neoantigens. The third is the ex vivo manufacturing of therapeutic T cells with specificity redirected to the desired neoantigens through the expression of the isolated TCRs. This last step, the production of T cells, is based on the use of the Sleeping Beauty system to stably express TCRs. Once the patient-derived T cells are genetically modified, they are propagated based on the NCI’s established technology referred to as “rapid expansion protocol” which has produced clinical-grade T cells resulting in anti-tumor effects in other studies, including in patients with solid tumors. It is anticipated that patients will receive populations of T cells genetically modified to express more than one TCR so that more than one neoantigen can be targeted in the patient. We expect infusing multiple TCRs per patient will reduce the probability of leaving some cancer cells unaddressed, lowering the risk of cancer relapse.

Under our CRADA, the NCI will perform clinical evaluations of the ability of these Sleeping Beauty-engineered T cells to express TCRs that are reactive against neoantigens to mediate cancer regression in patients with refractory (e.g., metastatic) solid tumors for several tumor types, including gastrointestinal and genitourinary, breast, ovarian, non-small cell lung cancer and glioblastoma. This research is being conducted at the NCI under the direction of Steven A. Rosenberg, M.D., Ph.D., Chief of the Surgery Branch at the NCI. We expect the NCI will begin treating patients in this clinical trial in mid-2019.

Solid Tumor Malignancy Market

Cancer is the second most common cause of death in the United States, accounting for nearly one of every four deaths. Approximately 1,735,350 new cancer cases were expected to be diagnosed, and 609,640 cancer deaths expected to occur, in the United States in 2018 according to the American Cancer Society. Of these, the majority were caused by solid tumors. Invasive cancer, such as malignancies of epithelial tissue represent 80% to 90% of all cancer cases according to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program of the National Cancer Institute. These diseases include colorectal, lung, ovarian, skin, bladder, head and neck cancers, among others.

SLEEPING BEAUTY CAR-T PROGRAM

Background

We are developing CAR⁺ T cell therapies targeting CD19 for hematologic malignancies using our Sleeping Beauty platform. Our CAR⁺ T program is focused on (1) shortening the time the patient must wait for treatment with engineered T cells, (2) increasing the access of hospitals to deliver, and patients to receive, this therapy, and (3) providing safe and efficacious personalized T-cell therapies to patients.

CARs are engineered molecules that, when present on the surface of a T cell, enable the T cell to directly recognize specific proteins or antigens that are present on the surface of other cells. Autologous CAR⁺ T-cell therapies are manufactured individually for the recipient’s use by modifying the patient’s own T cells outside the body, causing the T cells to stably express CARs. Our CAR⁺ T program is focused on CD19, which is a protein expressed on the cell surface of B cells and a validated target for B cell driven hematological malignancies.

11

Two autologous anti-CD19 CAR⁺ T cell therapies have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, for the treatment of relapsed/refractory (R/R) B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Kymriah^®) and R/R large B-cell lymphoma (Kymriah^® and Yescarta^®). These approaches have been successful in helping patients fight cancer, in particular CD19-positive cancers, resulting in significant remission rates. However, we anticipate that the viral manufacturing approaches used to manufacture these therapies will limit their commercial success.

We believe our Sleeping Beauty CAR⁺ T therapy will offer distinct advantages to the approach used by other CAR-T cell companies. In particular, the ability of the DNA plasmids from the Sleeping Beauty system to integrate into resting T cells, coupled with expression of mbIL15 and CAR, will enable infused T cells to propagate within the patient to target leukemias and lymphoma, thereby avoiding the need to numerically expand T cells for weeks in bioreactors before administration. The reduced cost associated with using DNA plasmids, instead of virus and avoiding lengthy ex vivo manufacturing, and the flexibility to insert industry leading CAR technology in a “cassette” based approach, provides a solution to the cost and complexity of the current approach to manufacturing CAR⁺ T cells.

Clinical Development of CAR⁺ T

First generation. We entered the clinic in 2015 with CAR⁺ T therapies utilizing the non-viral genetic modification capabilities of the Sleeping Beauty system. These trials used “first-generation” technologies, the results from which were published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation in September 2016.

An update on patients in the first-generation trials was presented in a poster at the 2017 Annual Meeting of ASH. The trials demonstrated that first-generation Sleeping Beauty-modified CD19-specific CAR⁺ T cells appear to provide long-term cancer control when infused after hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation, or HSCT, for patients with advanced CD19⁺ malignancies.

All seven patients with advanced CD19⁺ non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma that received autologous T-cells were alive with a median survival of 40 months since T-cell infusion. We reported the proportion of patients who were alive was 100% and progression free was 86%. For 19 patients with advanced CD19⁺ acute lymphoblastic leukemia and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma infused with allogeneic T-cells following HSCT, nine patients were alive with a median survival of 31 months. The proportion of patients reported alive was 49% and the proportion of patients that were progression free was 32%. Of the subset of eight patients who received donor-derived T-cells after haploidentical HSCT, the proportion of patients who were alive was 63% and the proportion of patients that were progression free was 50%. These survival rates compare favorably with historical data for patients receiving HSCT without CAR⁺ T administration. Patients receiving autologous HSCT have been reported to have a 3-year progression free survival of 49%. Patients receiving just allogeneic HSCT have been reported to have a one-year OS of 20-34%, and haploidentical (haplo) allogeneic HSCT patients have a 3-year OS of 37% and disease-free survival of 31%.

Persistence of circulating Sleeping Beauty-modified CAR⁺ T cells was demonstrated at two years in an autologous and allogeneic patient and for four years in two autologous patients.

Second generation. We are currently enrolling patients in an investigator-led Phase 1 trial using second-generation CD19-specific CAR⁺ T cells with a revised CAR structure in patients with advanced lymphoid malignancies at MD Anderson. Our second-generation CD19 trial employs a revised CAR design and shortened manufacturing process advancement, with culturing times as short as two weeks.

A summary of this ongoing trial was presented by Dr. Partow Kebriaei of MD Anderson in a presentation at the 2017 Annual Meeting of ASH in December 2017. Interim data from the trial demonstrated that autologous T-cells infused after lymphodepleting chemotherapy could be detected and exhibited anti-tumor effects and had an encouraging safety profile in patients with relapsed/refractory CD19⁺ malignancies. Complete responses at

12

one month were reported in four of eight patients with either ALL (n=5), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (n=1), or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (n=2), with two morphologic complete responses at three months. Follow-up blood tests demonstrated sustained persistence of infused T-cells and targeting of malignant and normal B cells. There were no dose limiting toxicities with only grade 1 or 2 adverse events being reported. T-cell dose escalation continues and we have recently completed Cohort 3. We anticipate stopping enrollment in this trial when our third-generation trial moves forward in the clinic, as further described below.

Third generation. In the preclinical setting, the time to manufacture and administer third-generation Sleeping Beauty-modified CAR⁺ T cells co-expressing mbIL15 has been reduced to two days or less from gene transfer. This very rapid manufacturing process likely delivers genetically modified T cells with superior therapeutic potential in vivo. Preclinical studies of third-generation Sleeping Beauty CAR⁺ T cells, presented at the 2017 Annual Meeting of ASH, demonstrated that a single dose of T cells co-expressing a CD19-specific CAR, mbIL15, and kill switch resulted in sustained in vivo persistence that produced potent anti-tumor effects and superior leukemia-free survival in mice.

In June 2018, we announced the FDA placed our investigator-led Investigational New Drug, or IND, application on clinical hold for the proposed Phase 1 trial to evaluate CD19-specific CAR-T therapies very rapidly manufactured at MD Anderson. The FDA has requested additional information relating to chemistry, manufacturing and controls, specifically requesting that the product meet a minimum threshold for cell viability. By applying improved principles of engineering and cell processing, we have made progress to achieve this threshold in manufacturing runs. Thus, we expect to respond to the FDA and begin treating patients in the second half of 2019.

Joint Venture with Eden BioCell Limited

In December 2018, we announced that, in conjunction with TriArm Therapeutics, Ltd., or TriArm, we would launch Eden BioCell, Ltd., or Eden BioCell, to lead clinical development and commercialization of Sleeping Beauty-generated CAR-T therapies in the People’s Republic of China (including Macau and Hong Kong), Taiwan and Korea. TriArm is a privately-owned cell therapy company with operations in Germany, China and the United States that was formed by Panacea Venture Healthcare, a fund co-founded and managed by James Huang, Managing Partner of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers China.

We expect to license the rights to Eden BioCell for third-generation Sleeping Beauty-generated CAR-T therapies targeting the CD19 antigen. Eden BioCell will be owned equally by us and TriArm and the parties will share decision-making authority. TriArm has committed up to $35.0 million to this joint venture and will manage all clinical development to execute trials in the territory. We expect our joint venture with TriArm to close in the first half of 2019.

Hematologic Tumor Malignancy Market

According to the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, an estimated 174,250 people are expected to be diagnosed with leukemia, lymphoma, or myeloma in 2018. New diagnoses for such hematologic malignancies in the United States represented approximately 10% of the new cancer cases in the United States in 2018.

CONTROLLED IL-12 PLATFORM TECHNOLOGY

Background

Ad-RTS-hIL-12 plus veledimex is our gene delivery system to regulate production of IL-12, a potent, naturally occurring anti-cancer protein which functions as a master regulator of the immune system. We control the generation of recombinant IL-12 using a replication-incompetent adenoviral, or Ad, vector administered via a

13

single injection of virus into the brain tumor and engineered to conditionally express human IL-12, or hIL-12. The conditional expression of hIL-12 is modulated with the RheoSwitch Therapeutic System^® (RTS^®) by the small molecule veledimex, an activator ligand orally administered that has been shown to cross the blood-brain barrier.

In this way, Ad-RTS-hIL-12 is administered within the tumor under the control of the RTS “switch”. Activation of the switch, and therefore conditional gene expression and subsequent IL-12 protein production, is tightly controlled by the activator ligand, veledimex, delivered to the patient as a daily oral capsule, typically over 14 days. When veledimex is administered to a patient, the switch is turned “on” and IL-12 is produced; when veledimex is withdrawn, the switch is turned “off” and production of recombinant IL-12 ceases. The amount of IL-12 produced is proportional to the dosing of veledimex which further enhances control of this cytokine.

The recombinant IL-12 appears to be biologically active as, for example, it can stimulate production of the body’s own interferon-gamma, or IFN-g. IL-12 is a potent pro-inflammatory cytokine capable of reversing immune escape mechanisms and improving the function of tumor fighting natural killer, or NK, cells and T cells.

Controlled IL-12 has been shown to biologically turn “cold tumors hot.” In our clinical trials, we have seen deep and sustained infiltration of activated T cells (i.e., “hot” tumors) where previously there had been very little T cell infiltration (i.e., “cold” tumors). Data from repeat biopsies obtained four to six months following administration of Ad-RTS-hIL-12 plus veledimex has shown an increased and sustained infiltration of activated T-cells producing IFN-g within the brain-tumor lesion. Data from our Phase 1 monotherapy clinical trial provided compelling evidence from biopsies, taken more than four months after administration of Ad-RTS-hIL-12 plus veledimex, demonstrating that Controlled IL-12 causes a sustained influx of activated killer (CD8⁺) T cells into brain tumors. These data also show upregulated expression of PD-1/PDL-1 biomarkers, suggesting that the combination of Ad-RTS-hIL-12 plus veledimex with an immune checkpoint inhibitor, such as targeting PD-1, may improve patient outcomes.

These data are consistent with our biopsy data from patients with breast cancer and melanoma that received Ad-RTS-hIL-12 plus veledimex.

14

Clinical Development of Controlled IL-12

We have tested Ad-RTS-IL-12 plus veledimex in several Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials for the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma, breast cancer and brain cancer. We have focused much of our efforts in developing Ad-RTS-IL-12 plus veledimex, as both a monotherapy and in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors, for adults and children with recurrent brain tumors. We believe Controlled IL-12 may have broad applicability and we may explore initiating clinical trials in additional oncology indications as a monotherapy or in combination with checkpoint inhibitors, either alone or with partners.

Monotherapy: Clinical Development Ad-RTS-IL-12 plus Veledimex for Adult rGBM. Our multi-center Phase 1 trial in patients with rGBM, which was initiated in June 2015, continues to show promising data with preliminary evidence of a survival benefit and a predictable and manageable safety profile. The primary objective of the Phase 1 trial is to determine the safety and tolerability of a single intra-tumoral Ad-RTS-hIL-12 injection activated upon dosing with oral veledimex. Secondary objectives are to determine the maximum tolerated dose, the immune responses elicited, and assessment of biologic response. The trial enrolled patients at doses ranging from 10 mg to 40 mg of veledimex.

A subset of six subjects in this clinical trial who received low-dose steroids (less than 20 mg of dexamethasone) along with 20 mg of veledimex achieved 17.8 months median OS compared with five to eight months OS established in historical controls. In our Phase 1 trial in rGBM, Ad-RTS-hIL-12 plus veledimex continues to be safe and well tolerated, with adverse events, or AEs, that were predictable and reversible, neurologic AEs that were relatively mild and transient, and with no drug-related deaths.

In 2018, we initiated an expansion sub study to enroll additional subjects taking 20 mg of veledimex, which is now fully enrolled with an additional 36 subjects. Based on the promising results seen in the six patients that received low-dose steroids in the original Phase 1 clinical trial, a goal of the sub study was to increase the patient population enrolled with 20 mg of veledimex as well low doses of steroids. At least 15 of the subjects in our expansion study received low-dose steroids (dexamethasone), bringing the total to at least 21 subjects in this subset.

Results from Phase 1 Clinical Trial of Ad-RTS-IL-12 plus Veledimex for Adult rGBM

Veledimex 20mg Cohort Craniotomy Group		Veledimex 20mg Cohort Stereotactic Group

15

Combination Therapy. We have initiated a Phase 1 clinical trial to evaluate Ad-RTS-hIL-12 plus veledimex in combination with Bristol-Myers Squibb Company’s OPDIVO^® (nivolumab), an immune checkpoint inhibitor, or PD-1 inhibitor, in adult patients with rGBM. This trial was initiated in 2018 and will explore the potentially synergistic effect of this combination in up to 18 patients. We expect to complete enrollment in the second quarter of 2019.

In November 2018, we announced a clinical supply agreement with Regeneron to evaluate Ad-RTS-hIL-12 plus veledimex in combination with Regeneron’s PD-1 antibody Libtayo^® (cemiplimab-rwlc) to treat patients with rGBM. Libtayo has been approved in the United States for the treatment of patients with metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, or CSCC, or locally advanced CSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or curative radiation. We expect to initiate a Phase 2 clinical trial in the first half of 2019 in approximately 30 patients with rGBM to measure preliminary safety and efficacy of Ad-RTS-hIL-12 plus veledimex in combination with Libtayo. Under the terms of our agreement, we will be responsible for the conduct and costs of the clinical trial, and Regeneron will supply Libtayo for the trial. We may potentially explore the Ad-RTS-hIL-12 plus veledimex in combination with Libtayo in additional indications.

Monotherapy: Pediatrics. In 2017, we dosed the first patient in a Phase 1 clinical trial of Ad-RTS-hIL-12 plus veledimex for the treatment of pediatric brain tumors. This open label trial will assess the safety and tolerability of a single intra-tumoral injection of Ad-RTS-hIL-12, and is conducted in two groups. The first is comprised of pediatric patients with recurrent or progressive supratentorial brain tumors, while the second comprises pediatric patients with glioma in the pontine region of the brain, known as diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma, or DIPG. This Phase 1 trial is being conducted at leading pediatric cancer centers across the United States, including Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital in Chicago, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and the University of California, San Francisco.

Glioblastoma Market. We are currently developing Controlled IL-12 to treat patients with rGBM. Glioblastoma is an aggressive primary brain tumor affecting approximately 74,000 people worldwide each year; it is a fast-growing, aggressive type of central nervous system tumor, with an estimated 12,760 new adult cases predicted in the United States for 2018 according to the American Brain Tumor Association. Recurrence rates for this type of cancer are near 90 percent, and prognosis for adult patients is poor with treatment often combining multiple approaches including surgery, radiation and chemotherapy.

Recurrent glioblastoma is an aggressive cancer with one of the lowest 3-year survival rates, at 3%, among all cancers. For patients who have experienced multiple recurrences, the prognosis is particularly poor, with a OS of six to seven months, while overall survival in patients who have failed temozolomide and bevacizumab, or equivalent salvage chemotherapy, is approximately three to five months. Given the poor overall prognosis and lack of effective treatments, new therapeutic approaches for malignant gliomas are needed.

In children, the incidence of brain cancer is approximately 4.84 per 100,000, according to the NCI. DIPG accounts for approximately 15 percent of all cases of pediatric brain tumors, with a median survival time of less than one year. Because of where these tumors are situated, DIPG is inaccessible to surgery and there are no known curative options.

License Agreements, Intellectual Property and Other Agreements

Our goal is to obtain, maintain, and enforce patent protection for our products, formulations, processes, methods, and other proprietary technologies to preserve our trade secrets and to operate without infringing upon the proprietary rights of other parties. Our policy is to actively seek the broadest possible intellectual property protection for our product candidates through a combination of contractual arrangements and patents, both in the United States and abroad.

16

Exclusive License Agreement with Precigen, Inc.

On October 5, 2018, we entered into an exclusive license agreement, or the License Agreement, with Precigen, Inc., or Precigen, a wholly owned subsidiary of Intrexon Corporation, or Intrexon. As between us and Precigen, the terms of the License Agreement replace and supersede the terms of: (a) that certain Exclusive Channel Partner Agreement by and between us and Intrexon, dated January 6, 2011, as amended by the First Amendment to Exclusive Channel Partner Agreement effective September 13, 2011, the Second Amendment to the Exclusive Channel Partner Agreement effective March 27, 2015, and the Third Amendment to Exclusive Channel Partner Agreement effective June 29, 2016, which was subsequently assigned by Intrexon to Precigen; (b) certain rights and obligations pursuant to that certain License and Collaboration Agreement effective March 27, 2015 between us, Intrexon and ARES TRADING Trading S.A., or Ares Trading, a subsidiary of Merck KGaA, or Merck, as assigned by Intrexon to Precigen, or the Ares Trading Agreement; (c) that certain License Agreement between us, Intrexon, and MD Anderson, with an effective date of January 13, 2015, or the MD Anderson License, which was subsequently assigned by Intrexon and assumed by Precigen effective as of January 1, 2018; and (d) that certain Research and Development Agreement between us, Intrexon and MD Anderson with an effective date of August 17, 2015, or the Research and Development Agreement, and any amendments or statements of work thereto.

Pursuant to the terms of the License Agreement, Precigen has granted us an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing, sub-licensable license to research, develop and commercialize (i) products utilizing Precigen’s RheoSwitch^® gene switch, or RTS, for the treatment of cancer, referred to as IL-12 Products, (ii) CAR products directed to (A) CD19 for the treatment of cancer, referred to as CD19 Products, and (B) a second target, subject to the rights of Merck to pursue such target under the Ares Trading Agreement, and (iii) TCR products designed for neoantigens for the treatment of cancer. Precigen has also granted us an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing, sub-licensable license for certain patents relating to the Sleeping Beauty technology to research, develop and commercialize TCR products for both neoantigens and shared antigens for the treatment of cancer, referred to as TCR Products.

We will be solely responsible for all aspects of the research, development and commercialization of the exclusively licensed products for the treatment of cancer. We are required to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize IL-12 products and CD19 products and after a two-year period, the TCR Products.

Precigen has also granted us an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing, sub-licensable license to research, develop and commercialize products utilizing an additional construct that expresses RTS IL-12 for the treatment of cancer, referred to as Gorilla IL-12 Products.

In consideration of the licenses and other rights granted by Precigen, we will pay Precigen an annual license fee of $100 thousand and we have agreed to reimburse Precigen for certain historical costs of the licensed programs up to $1.0 million, payable quarterly.

We will make milestone payments totaling up to an additional $52.5 million for each exclusively licensed program upon the initiation of later stage clinical trials and upon the approval of exclusively licensed products in various jurisdictions. In addition, we will pay Precigen tiered royalties ranging from low-single digit to high-single digit on the net sales derived from the sales of any approved IL-12 products and CAR products. We will also pay Precigen royalties ranging from low-single digit to mid-single digit on the net sales derived from the sales of any approved TCR products, up to a maximum royalty amount of $100.0 million in the aggregate. We will also pay Precigen 20% of any sublicensing income received by us relating to the licensed products.

We are responsible for all development costs associated with each of the licensed products, other than Gorilla IL-12 products. We and Precigen will share the development costs and operating profits for Gorilla IL-12 products, and we are responsible for 80% of the development costs and receiving 80% of the operating profits, and Precigen responsible for the remaining 20% of the development costs and receiving 20% of the operating profits.

17

Precigen will pay us royalties ranging from low-single digits to mid-single digits on the net sales derived from the sale of Precigen’s CAR products, up to $50.0 million.

In consideration of our entry into the License Agreement, Intrexon has forfeited and returned to us all shares of our Series 1 preferred stock held by or payable to Intrexon as of the date of the License Agreement.

We determined that this transaction represented a capital transaction between related parties. We fair valued the preferred stock and the derivative liability on the date of the transaction, noting a total fair value of $163.3 million. The relinquishment of our obligation under the Ares Trading Agreement was also considered part of the overall capital transaction. We recognized an additional credit to accumulated deficit of $49.5 million as a result of the relief of the obligation under the Ares Trading Agreement (Note 8). The total amount of the settlement was $212.8 million.

We incurred approximately $7.4 million of transaction advisory costs with third-party vendors, of which $5.4 million was considered a direct cost associated with the Series 1 preferred stock extinguishment and is also included as part of the consideration transferred. The remaining $2.0 million of transaction costs were recognized as an expense during the year ended December 31, 2018.

We recognized a net credit to accumulated deficit of $207.3 million, calculated as the difference in the carrying value of the Series 1 preferred stock, derivative liability, and contract liability, and the consideration transferred of $5.4 million, in connection with the transaction. This amount is included in net income available to common shareholders in the calculation of earnings per share (Note 3).

License Agreement—The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

On January 13, 2015, we, together with Intrexon, entered into the MD Anderson License with MD Anderson (which Intrexon subsequently assigned to Precigen). Pursuant to the MD Anderson License, we, together with Precigen, hold an exclusive, worldwide license to certain technologies owned and licensed by MD Anderson including technologies relating to novel CAR T-cell therapies, non-viral gene transfer systems, genetic modification and/or propagation of immune cells and other cellular therapy approaches, Natural Killer, or NK Cells, and TCRs, arising from the laboratory of Laurence Cooper, M.D., Ph.D., who became our Chief Executive Officer in May 2015 and was formerly a tenured professor of pediatrics at MD Anderson and is now currently a visiting scientist under that institution’s policies.

On August 17, 2015, we, Precigen and MD Anderson entered into the Research and Development Agreement, to formalize the scope and process for the transfer by MD Anderson, pursuant to the terms of the MD Anderson License, of certain existing research programs and related technology rights, as well as the terms and conditions for future collaborative research and development of new and ongoing research programs.

Pursuant to the Research and Development Agreement, we, Precigen and MD Anderson formed a joint steering committee to oversee and manage and ongoing research programs. Under our License Agreement with Precigen, we and Precigen agreed that Precigen would no longer participate on the joint steering committee after the date of the License Agreement. As provided under the MD Anderson License, we provided funding for research and development activities in support of the research programs under the Research and Development Agreement for a period of three years and in an amount of no less than $15.0 million and no greater than $20.0 million per year. On November 14, 2017, we entered into an amendment to the Research and Development Agreement extending its term until April 15, 2021. During the year ended December 31, 2018, we made payments in the aggregate amount of $2.7 million to MD Anderson compared to $13.0 million during the year ended December 31, 2017. The decrease in cash paid to MD Anderson during the year ended December 31, 2018 as compared to the same period in the prior year is a result of the final quarterly payment being made to MD Anderson in January 2018 and the result of approved expenditures incurred by us being deducted from the January 2018 quarterly payment. The net balance of cash resources on hand at MD Anderson available to offset expenses and future costs is

18

$27.8 million, of which $18.4 million is included in other current assets and the remaining $9.4 million is included in non-current assets at December 31, 2018.

The term of the MD Anderson License expires on the last to occur of (a) the expiration of all patents licensed thereunder, or (b) the twentieth anniversary of the date of the MD Anderson License; provided, however, that following the expiration of the term of the MD Anderson License, we, together with Precigen, shall then have a fully-paid up, royalty free, perpetual, irrevocable and sublicensable license to use the licensed intellectual property thereunder. After ten years from the date of the MD Anderson License and subject to a 90-day cure period, MD Anderson will have the right to convert the MD Anderson License into a non-exclusive license if we and Precigen are not using commercially reasonable efforts to commercialize the licensed intellectual property on a case-by-case basis. After five years from the date of the MD Anderson License and subject to a 180-day cure period, MD Anderson will have the right to terminate the MD Anderson License with respect to specific technology(ies) funded by the government or subject to a third-party contract if we and Precigen are not meeting the diligence requirements in such funding agreement or contract, as applicable. MD Anderson may also terminate the agreement with written notice upon material breach by us and Precigen, if such breach has not been cured within 60 days of receiving such notice. In addition, the MD Anderson License will terminate upon the occurrence of certain insolvency events for both us and Precigen and may be terminated by the mutual written agreement of us, Precigen, and MD Anderson.

Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with the National Cancer Institute

On January 10, 2017, we announced the signing of the CRADA with the NCI for the development of adoptive cell transfer, or ACT,-based immunotherapies genetically modified using the Sleeping Beauty transposon/transposase system to express TCRs for the treatment of solid tumors. The principal goal of the CRADA is to develop and evaluate ACT for patients with advanced cancers using autologous peripheral blood lymphocytes, or PBL, genetically modified using the non-viral Sleeping Beauty system to express TCRs that recognize neoantigens expressed within a patient’s cancer. Research conducted under the CRADA will be at the direction of Steven A. Rosenberg, M.D., Ph.D., Chief of the Surgery Branch at the NCI, in collaboration with our researchers and Precigen researchers. Our remaining obligation, as of December 31, 2018, for the CRADA is $2.5 million over the next year, payable in $625 thousand payments on a quarterly basis. During the twelve months ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, we made payments of $2.5 million, each year. In February 2019, we extended our CRADA with the NCI for two years, committing an additional $5.0 million to this program.

Patents and Other Intellectual Property Rights and Protection

Patents extend for varying periods according to the date of patent filing or grant and the legal term of patents in the various countries where patent protection is obtained. The actual protection offering by a patent, which can vary from country to country, depends of the type of patent, the scope of its coverage and the availability of legal remedies in the country.

Pursuant to the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, some of our patents, under certain conditions, may be eligible for limited patent term extension for a period of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during drug development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, this extension period cannot be extended beyond 14 years from the drug’s approval date. The patent term restoration period is generally one-half the period of time elapsed between the effective date of an IND application or the issue date of the patent, whichever is later, and the submission date of an NDA, plus the period of time between the submission date of the NDA or the issue date of the patent, whichever is later, and FDA approval. The United States Patent and Trademark Office, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves applications for any patent term extension or restoration. We intend to seek the benefits of this statute, but there can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain any such benefits.

We also depend upon the skills, knowledge, and experience of our scientific and technical personnel, as well as those of our advisors, consultants, and other contractors, none of which is patentable. To help protect proprietary

19

know-how, which is not patentable, and for inventions for which patents may be difficult to enforce, we currently rely, and in the future, will continue to rely, on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect our interests. To this end, we generally require employees, consultants, advisors and other contractors to enter into confidentiality agreements that prohibit the disclosure of confidential information and, where applicable, require disclosure and assignment to us of the ideas, developments, discoveries and inventions important to our business.

Our patent position and proprietary rights are subject to certain risks and uncertainties. Please read the “Risk Related to Our Intellectual Property” section for further information about certain risks and uncertainties that may affect our patent position and proprietary rights.

Additional information as of December 31, 2018 about material patents and other proprietary rights covering our product candidates is set forth below.

Ad-RTS-IL-12 plus veledimex and DC-RTS-IL-12 plus veledimex

The patent estate licensed to us by Precigen covering Ad-RTS-IL-12 plus activator ligands, such as veledimex and DC-RTS-IL-12 plus activator ligand compositions, methods of use, methods of manufacture, and formulations includes over one hundred patents and applications. This portfolio also includes issued and pending foreign patents in Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia and other countries. The term of one or more of the issued patents may be extended due to the regulatory approval process.

CAR⁺ T

In January 2015, we in-licensed from MD Anderson a technology portfolio that includes intellectual property directed to certain non-viral Sleeping Beauty system and CAR⁺ T cell and bioprocessing technology. Under the terms of the agreement, we have an exclusive license to certain of the intellectual property, a co-exclusive license to certain of the intellectual property technology and a non-exclusive license to certain of the intellectual property technology. Our rights to the MD Anderson intellectual property flow to us via our agreement with Precigen.

Governmental Regulation and Product Approval

As a biopharmaceutical company, we are subject to extensive regulation. Our programmed T-cell product candidates are regulated as biologics. 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, 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. 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.

20

U.S. 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 the 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. 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

21

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.

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.

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, the NIH and the investigators for serious and unexpected adverse events, any findings from other studies, tests in

22

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.

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.

U.S. 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.

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

23

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.

Notwithstanding the submission of relevant data and information, the FDA may ultimately decide that the BLA does not satisfy its regulatory criteria for approval. If the agency decides not to approve the BLA in its present 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.

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.

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.

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 rely, and expect to continue to

24

rely, on third parties for the production of clinical and 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.

Moreover, the FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of products. Drugs may be promoted only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label, although physicians, in the practice of medicine, may prescribe approved drugs for unapproved indications. However, companies may share truthful and not misleading information that is otherwise consistent with the labeling. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability.

U.S. Marketing Exclusivity

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, or BPCIA, 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). Reference products 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.

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

25

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 payors include federal and state healthcare programs, private managed care providers, health insurers and other organizations. The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price of a product or for 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. In addition, in the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists among third-party payors. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor. 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.

The downward pressure on health care 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 favorable 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.

Health Care Laws Governing Interactions with Healthcare Providers

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors in the United States play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of drug products. Arrangements with healthcare providers, physicians, third-party payors and customers can expose pharmaceutical manufactures to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and. The applicable federal, state and foreign healthcare laws and regulations laws that may affect a pharmaceutical manufacture’s ability to operate include, but are not limited to:

26

Efforts to ensure that business arrangements comply with applicable healthcare laws involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental and enforcement authorities will conclude that a pharmaceutical manufacturer’s business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law interpreting applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If any such actions are instituted against a pharmaceutical manufacturer, and it is not successful in defending itself or asserting its rights, it may be subject to the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, disgorgement, monetary fines, imprisonment, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment of operations, as well as additional reporting obligations and oversight if subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws. In addition, the approval and commercialization of drug products outside the United States may also subject a pharmaceutical manufacturer to foreign equivalents of the healthcare laws mentioned above, among other foreign laws.

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.

27

In March 2010, the ACA was enacted, which includes measures that have significantly changed healthcare financing by both governmental and private insurers. The provisions of the ACA of importance to the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry are, among others, the following:

Some of the provisions of the ACA have yet to be implemented, and there have been legal and political challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. Since January 2017, President Trump has signed two executive orders and other directives designed to delay, circumvent or loosen certain requirements mandated by the ACA. Concurrently, Congress has considered legislation that would repeal or repeal and replace all or part of the ACA. While Congress has not passed repeal legislation, two bills affecting the implementation of certain taxes under the ACA have been signed into law. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, or Tax Act, includes a provision which repealed, effective January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the ACA on certain

28

individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate”. On January 22, 2018, President Trump signed a continuing resolution on appropriations for fiscal year 2018 that delayed the implementation of certain ACA-mandated fees, including the so-called “Cadillac” tax on certain high cost employer-sponsored insurance plans, the annual fee imposed on certain health insurance providers based on market share, and the medical device excise tax on non-exempt medical devices. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, or the BBA, among other things, amended the ACA, effective January 1, 2019, to increase from 50 percent to 70 percent the point-of-sale discount that is owed by pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D and to close the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the “donut hole”. In July 2018, CMS published a final rule permitting further collections and payments to and from certain ACA qualified health plans and health insurance issuers under ACA risk adjustment program in response to the outcome of federal district court litigation regarding the method CMS uses to determine this risk adjustment. On December 14, 2018, a Texas U.S. District Court Judge ruled that ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress as part of the Tax Act. While the Texas U.S. District Court Judge, as well as the Trump administration and CMS, have stated that the ruling will have no immediate effect pending appeal of the decision, it is unclear how this decision, subsequent appeals, and other efforts to repeal and replace ACA will impact ACA.

In addition, other federal health reform measures have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. For example, as a result of the Budget Control Act of 2011, providers are subject to Medicare payment reductions of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, including the BBA, will remain in effect through 2027 unless additional Congressional action is taken. Further, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments from providers from three to five years. The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 also introduced a quality payment program under which certain individual Medicare providers will be subject to certain incentives or penalties based on new program quality standards. Payment adjustments for the Medicare quality payment program will begin in 2019.

Further, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny in the United States of pharmaceutical pricing practices in light of the rising cost of prescription drugs and biologics. Such scrutiny has resulted in several recent Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. At the federal level, the Trump administration’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2019 contains further drug price control measures that could be enacted during the 2019 budget process or in other future legislation, including, for example, measures to permit Medicare Part D plans to negotiate the price of certain drugs under Medicare Part B, to allow some states to negotiate drug prices under Medicaid, and to eliminate cost sharing for generic drugs for low-income patients. For example, in September 2018, CMS announced that it will allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option to use step therapy for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2019, and in October 2018, CMS proposed a new rule that would require direct-to-consumer television advertisements of prescription drugs and biological products, for which payment is available through or under Medicare or Medicaid, to include in the advertisement the Wholesale Acquisition Cost, or list price, of that drug or biological product. On January 31, 2019, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, proposed modifications to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute discount safe harbor for the purpose of reducing the cost of drug products to consumers which, among other things, if finalized, will affect discounts paid by manufacturers to Medicare Part D plans, Medicaid managed care organizations and pharmacy benefit managers working with these organizations. While some of these and other proposed measures may require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, Congress and the Trump administration have each indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. 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

29

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.

Additionally, on May 30, 2018, the Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act of 2017, or the Right to Try Act, was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational new drug products that have completed a Phase 1 clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA permission under the FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a drug manufacturer to make its drug products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act.

U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, U.K. Bribery Act and Other Laws

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or 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 U.K. Bribery Act 2010, or 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.

Competition

The development and commercialization for new products to treat cancer, including the indications we are pursuing, is highly competitive and considerable competition exists from major pharmaceutical, biotechnology and specialty cancer companies. Many of these companies have more experience in preclinical and clinical development, manufacturing, regulatory, and global commercialization. We are also competing with academic institutions, governmental agencies, and private organizations that are conducting research in the field of cancer.

The biopharmaceutical industry, and the rapidly evolving market for developing genetically engineered T-cells, is characterized by significant competition and rapid innovation. Our genetically engineering T-cell programs face significant competition in the CAR and TCR technology space from multiple companies and their

30

collaborators. Two such companies, Novartis International AG (Kymriah^®) and Kite Pharma Inc./Gilead Sciences, Inc. (Yescarta^®), have now commercialized autologous CAR⁺ T cells against CD19. Additional companies developing autologous CAR⁺ T targets include Juno Therapeutics Inc./Celgene Corporation, bluebird bio, Inc., in collaboration with Celgene Corporation, Nanjing Legend Biotech and Janssen Biotech, Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Autolus Therapeutics plc, Mustang Bio, Inc. and Marker Therapeutics, Inc. Several companies are pursuing the development of allogeneic CAR⁺ T therapies, including Allogene Therapeutics, Inc. (in collaboration with Pfizer Inc.), Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc. and Cellectis SA (in collaboration with Servier) which may compete with our product candidates.

Our TCR program faces competition from companies targeting shared antigens, including from Adaptimmune Therapeutics plc in collaboration with GlaxoSmithKline plc, Kite Pharma Inc./Gilead Sciences, Inc., Tmunity Therapeutics Inc, Medigene AG, Tactiva Therapeutics, LLC, Takara Bio Inc., TC BioPharm Ltd., TCR² Therapeutics Inc. and Zelluna Immunotherapy AS. Several companies, including Advaxis Inc./Amgen Inc., BioNTech AG, Neon Therapeutics Inc. and Gritstone Oncology, Inc., are pursuing vaccine platforms to target neoantigens for solid tumors. Other companies are developing non-viral gene therapies, including Poseida Therapeutics, Inc. and several companies developing CRISPR technology. We also face competition from non-cell-based treatments offered by other companies such as Amgen Inc., AstraZeneca plc, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Incyte Corporation, Merck & Co., Inc., and Roche Holding AG.

We are initially developing our Controlled IL-12 platform for the treatment of rGBM. Companies that sell marketed drugs for rGBM are Genentech, Inc. and Roche Holding AG with Avastin (bevacizumab), a vascular endothelial growth factor directed antibody indicated for the treatment of adults with rGBM. Arbor Pharmaceuticals Inc. markets GLIADEL Wafer, which is indicated in patients with newly diagnosed high-grade malignant glioma as an adjunct to surgery and radiation and is also indicated in patients with rGBM multiforme as an adjunct to surgery.

Several companies have product candidates in Phase 3 development for the treatment of glioblastoma. Tocagen Inc. is conducting a Phase 2/3 randomized, open-label study of Toca 511, a retroviral replicating vector, combined with Toca FC in subjects undergoing planned resection for rGBM. Vascular Biogenics Ltd. is developing VB-111, an anti-angiogenic non-replicating adenovirus, combined with bevacizumab, in patients with rGBM. DelMar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is developing VAL-083, a systemic alkylating agent, in patients with rGBM who have failed standard temozolomide/radiation therapy and bevacizumab.

Other competitors with product candidates currently in Phase 2 clinical trials include AbbVie Inc.’s Depatus-M (ABT-414) and DNA-2401, a conditionally replicative adenovirus being evaluated in combination with pembrolizumab (KEYTRUDA^®) for rGBM by DNATrix Inc. and Merck & Co., Inc. Duke University is enrolling a randomized Phase 2 study of oncolytic polio/rhinovirus recombinant (PVSRIPO) alone or in combination with lomustine in recurrent WHO Grade IV malignant glioma patients. Also, MedImmune, LLC/AstraZeneca plc’s durvalumab was evaluated in a Phase 2 trial in patients with rGBM.

Employees

As of February 21, 2019, we had 48 full-time employees, 33 of whom were engaged in research and development activities and 15 of whom were engaged in business development, finance, information systems, facilities, human resources or administrative support. None of our employees are subject to a collective bargaining agreement.

Corporate Information

We originally incorporated in Colorado in September 1998 (under the name Net Escapes, Inc.) and later changed our name to “EasyWeb, Inc.” in February 1999. We re-incorporated in Delaware on May 16, 2005 under the same name. On September 13, 2005, we completed a “reverse” acquisition of privately held Ziopharm, Inc., a Delaware corporation. To affect this transaction, we caused ZIO Acquisition Corp., our wholly-owned subsidiary, to merge with and into Ziopharm, Inc., with Ziopharm, Inc. surviving as our wholly owned subsidiary. In accordance with the terms of the merger, the outstanding common stock of Ziopharm, Inc. automatically converted into the right to receive an aggregate of approximately 97.3% of our outstanding common stock (after giving effect to the transaction). Following the merger, we caused Ziopharm, Inc. to merge

31

with and into us and we changed our name to “Ziopharm Oncology, Inc.” Although EasyWeb, Inc. was the legal acquirer in the transaction, we accounted for the transaction as a reverse acquisition under generally accepted accounting principles. As a result, Ziopharm, Inc. became the registrant with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, and the historical financial statements of Ziopharm, Inc. became our historical financial statements.

Our principal executive offices are located at One First Avenue, Parris Building 34, Navy Yard Plaza, Boston, Massachusetts 02129, and our telephone number is (617) 259-1970.

Available Information

Our website address is www.ziopharm.com. Our website and information included in or linked to our website are not part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We file reports with the SEC, which we make available on our website free of charge. These reports include annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to such reports, each of which is provided on our website as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such materials with or furnish them to the SEC. In addition, the SEC maintains a website (www.sec.gov) that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers, like us, that file electronically with the SEC, including us.

32

Item 1A. Risk Factors

An investment in our common stock is very risky. In addition to the other information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, you should carefully consider the following risk factors in evaluating us and our business. If any of the events described in the following risk factors were to occur, our business, financial condition, results of operation and future growth prospects would likely be materially and adversely affected. In that event, the trading price of our common stock could decline, and you could lose all or a part of your investment in our common stock. Therefore, we urge you to carefully review this entire report and consider the risk factors discussed below. Moreover, the risks described below are not the only ones that we face. Additional risks not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial may also affect our business, financial condition, operating results or prospects.

RISKS RELATED TO OUR BUSINESS

We will require substantial additional financial resources to continue ongoing development of our product candidates and pursue our business objectives; if we are unable to obtain these additional resources when needed, we may be forced to delay or discontinue our planned operations, including clinical testing of our product candidates.

We have not generated significant revenue and have incurred significant net losses in each year since our inception. For the year ended December 31, 2018, we had a net loss of $53.1 million, and, as of December 31, 2018, we have incurred approximately $566.3 million of accumulated deficit since our inception in 2003. We expect to continue to incur significant operating expenditures and net losses. Further development of our product candidates will likely require substantial increases in our expenses as we:

We continue to seek additional financial resources to fund the further development of our product candidates. If we are unable to obtain sufficient additional capital, one or more of these programs could be placed on hold.

As of December 31, 2018, we have approximately $61.7 million of cash and cash equivalents. Given our current development plans, we anticipate cash resources will be sufficient to fund our operations into the second quarter of 2020, and we have no committed sources of additional capital at this time. The forecast of cash resources is forward-looking information that involves risks and uncertainties, and the actual amount of our expenses could vary materially and adversely as a result of a number of factors. We have based our estimates on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and our expenses could prove to be significantly higher than we currently anticipate. Management does not know whether additional financing will be on terms favorable or acceptable to us when needed, if at all. If adequate additional funds are not available when required, or if we are unsuccessful in entering into partnership agreements for further development of our product candidates, management may need to curtail its development efforts and planned operations.

We need to raise additional capital to fund our operations. The manner in which we raise any additional funds may affect the value of your investment in our common stock.

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial revenue, we may finance our cash needs through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings and license and collaboration agreements. As of December 31,

33

2018, we have incurred approximately $566.3 million of accumulated deficit and had approximately $61.7 million of cash and cash equivalents. Given our current development plans, we anticipate that our current cash resources will be sufficient to fund our operations into the second quarter of 2020. However, changes may occur that would consume our existing capital prior to then, including expansion of the scope of, and/or slower than expected progress of, our research and development efforts and changes in governmental regulation. Actual costs may ultimately vary from our current expectations, which could materially impact our use of capital and our forecast of the period of time through which our financial resources will be adequate to support our operations.

In addition to above factors, our actual cash requirements may vary materially from our current expectations for a number of other factors that may include, but are not limited to, changes in the focus and direction of our development programs, competitive and technical advances, costs associated with the development of our product candidates, our ability to secure partnering arrangements, and costs of filing, prosecuting, defending and enforcing our intellectual property rights. If we exhaust our capital reserves more quickly than anticipated, regardless of the reason, and we are unable to obtain additional financing on terms acceptable to us or at all, we will be unable to proceed with development of some or all of our product candidates on expected timelines and will be forced to prioritize among them.

The unpredictability of the capital markets may severely hinder our ability to raise capital within the time periods needed or on terms we consider acceptable, if at all. Moreover, if we fail to advance one or more of our current product candidates to later-stage clinical trials, successfully commercialize one or more of our product candidates, or acquire new product candidates for development, we may have difficulty attracting investors that might otherwise be a source of additional financing.

Our need for additional capital and limited capital resources may force us to accept financing terms that could be significantly dilutive to existing stockholders. To the extent that we raise additional capital by issuing equity securities, our stockholders may experience dilution. In addition, we may grant future investors rights superior to those of our existing stockholders. If we raise additional funds through collaborations and licensing arrangements, it may be necessary to relinquish some rights to our technologies, product candidates or products, or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us. If we raise additional funds by incurring debt, we could incur significant interest expense and become subject to covenants in the related transaction documentation that could affect the manner in which we conduct our business.

Our plans to develop and commercialize non-viral and viral adoptive cellular therapies based on engineered cytokines and CAR T-cell as well as TCR therapies can be considered as new approaches to cancer treatment, the successful development of which is subject to significant challenges.

We intend to employ technologies such as the technology licensed from MD Anderson pursuant to the MD Anderson License described above, and from Precigen, pursuant to the License Agreement, to pursue the development and commercialization of non-viral and viral adoptive cellular therapies based on cytokines, T-cells, CARs and TCRs, possibly under control of the RTS^® and other switch technologies targeting both hematologic and solid tumor malignancies. Because this is a new approach to cancer immunotherapy and cancer treatment generally, developing and commercializing product candidates subjects us to a number of challenges, including:

34

We cannot assure you that we will be able to successfully address these challenges, which could prevent us from achieving our research, development and commercialization goals.

Our current product candidates are based on novel technologies and are supported by limited clinical data and we cannot assure you that our current and planned clinical trials will produce data that supports regulatory approval of one or more of these product candidates.

The immuno-oncology effector platform in which we have acquired rights pursuant to our License Agreement with Precigen represents early-stage technology in the field of human oncology biotherapeutics, with Ad-RTS-IL-12 plus veledimex having completed trials, in melanoma, breast cancer and rGBM. Similarly, our genetically modified and/or non-modified T-cell candidates are supported by limited clinical data, all of which has been generated through trials conducted by MD Anderson, not by us. We plan to assume control of the overall clinical and regulatory development of our T-cell product candidates, and any failure to obtain, or delays in obtaining, sponsorship of new INDs, or in filing INDs sponsored by us for these or any other product candidates we determine to advance could negatively affect the timing of our potential future clinical trials. Such an impact on timing could increase research and development costs and could delay or prevent obtaining regulatory approval for our product candidates, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Further, we did not control the design or conduct of the previous trials. It is possible that the FDA will not accept these previous trials as providing adequate support for future clinical trials, whether controlled by us or third parties, for any of one or more reasons, including the safety, purity, and potency of the product candidate, the degree of product characterization, elements of the design or execution of the previous trials or safety concerns, or other trial results. We may also be subject to liabilities arising from any treatment-related injuries or adverse effects in patients enrolled in these previous trials. As a result, we may be subject to unforeseen third-party claims and delays in our potential future clinical trials. We may also be required to repeat in whole or in part clinical trials previously conducted by MD Anderson or other entities, which will be expensive and delay the submission and licensure or other regulatory approvals with respect to any of our product candidates.

In addition, the results of the limited clinical trials conducted to date may not be replicated in future clinical trials. Our Ad-RTS-IL-12 plus veledimex and genetically modified and non-modified T-cell product candidates, as well as other product candidates, may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy in clinical development, and

35

we cannot assure you that the results of any future trials will demonstrate the value and efficacy of our product candidates. Moreover, there are a number of regulatory requirements that we must satisfy before we can continue clinical trials of CAR⁺ T or other cellular therapy product candidates in the United States. Satisfaction of these requirements will entail substantial time, effort and financial resources. Any time, effort and financial resources we expend on our Ad-RTS-IL-12 plus veledimex and genetically modified and non-modified T-cell product candidates and other early-stage product candidate development programs may adversely affect our ability to continue development and commercialization of our immuno-oncology product candidates.

We report interim data on certain of our clinical trials and we cannot assure you that interim data will be predictive of either future interim results or final study results.

As part of our business, we provide updates related to the development of our product candidates, which may include updates related to interim clinical trial data. To date, our clinical trials have involved small patient populations and because of the small sample size, the interim results of these clinical trials may be subject to substantial variability and may not be indicative of either future interim results or final results.

We face substantial competition from other biopharmaceutical companies, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing products before, or more successfully than, we do.

The biopharmaceutical industry, and the rapidly evolving market for developing genetically engineered T-cells in particular, is characterized by intense competition and rapid innovation. The business of genetically engineering T-cells faces significant competition in the CAR and TCR technology space from multiple companies and their collaborators.

Two such companies, Novartis International AG (Kymriah^®) and Kite Pharma Inc./Gilead Sciences, Inc. (Yescarta^®), have now commercialized autologous CAR+ T cells against CD19. Additional companies developing autologous CAR+ T products include Juno Therapeutics Inc./Celgene Corporation, bluebird bio, Inc., in collaboration with Celgene Corporation, Nanjing Legend Biotech and Janssen Biotech, Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Autolus Therapeutics plc, Mustang Bio, Inc. and Marker Therapeutics, Inc. Several companies are pursuing the development of allogeneic CAR+ T therapies, including Allogene Therapeutics, Inc. (in collaboration with Pfizer Inc.), Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc. and Cellectis SA (in collaboration with Servier) which may also compete with our product candidates.

Our TCR program faces competition from companies targeting shared antigens, including from Adaptimmune Therapeutics plc in collaboration with GlaxoSmithKline plc, Kite Pharma Inc./Gilead Sciences, Inc., Tmunity Therapeutics Inc, Medigene AG, Tactiva Therapeutics, LLC, Takara Bio, Inc., TC Biopharm Ltd., TCR2 Therapeutics Inc. and Zelluna Immunotherapy AS and others. Several companies, including Advaxis Inc./Amgen Inc., BioNTech AG, Neon Therapeutics Inc. and Gritstone Oncology, Inc., are pursuing vaccine platforms to target neoantigens for solid tumors.

We are initially developing our Controlled IL-12 platform for the treatment of rGBM. Companies that sell marketed drugs for rGBM are Genentech Inc. and Roche Holding AG with Avastin (bevacizumab), a vascular endothelial growth factor directed antibody indicated for the treatment of adults with rGBM. Arbor Pharmaceuticals Inc. markets GLIADEL Wafer, which is indicated in patients with newly diagnosed high-grade malignant glioma as an adjunct to surgery and radiation and is also indicated in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme as an adjunct to surgery.

Several companies have product candidates in Phase 3 development for the treatment of glioblastoma, including Tocagen Inc., Vascular Biogenics Ltd., and DelMar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Several companies and institutions have product candidates currently in Phase 2 clinical trials, including Abbvie Inc., Duke University and MedImmune LLC/AstraZeneca plc.

Even if we obtain regulatory approval of potential products, we may not be the first to market and that may affect the price or demand for our potential products. Existing or future competing products may provide greater therapeutic convenience or clinical or other benefits for a specific indication than our products or may offer comparable performance at a lower cost. Additionally, the availability and price of our competitors’ products

36

could limit the demand and the price we are able to charge for our potential products. We may not be able to implement our business plan if the acceptance of our potential products is inhibited by price competition or the reluctance of physicians to switch from existing methods of treatment to our potential products, or if physicians switch to other new drug or biologic products or choose to reserve our potential products. Additionally, a competitor could obtain orphan product exclusivity from the FDA with respect to such competitor’s product. If such competitor product is determined to be the same product as one of our potential products, that may prevent us from obtaining approval from the FDA for such potential products for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances. If our products fail to capture and maintain market share, we may not achieve sufficient product revenues and our business will suffer.

We compete against fully integrated pharmaceutical companies and smaller companies that are collaborating with larger pharmaceutical companies, academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations. Many of these competitors have products already approved or in development. In addition, many of these competitors, either alone or together with their collaborative partners, operate larger research and development programs or have substantially greater financial resources than we do, as well as significantly greater experience in:

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. In addition, our ability to compete may be affected in many cases by insurers or other third-party payors seeking to encourage the use of generic products.

Any termination of our licenses with Precigen or MD Anderson could result in the loss of significant rights and could harm our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates.

We are dependent on patents, know-how, and proprietary technology that are licensed from others, particularly MD Anderson and Precigen. Any termination of these licenses could result in the loss of significant rights and could harm our ability to commercialize our product candidates. Disputes may also arise between us and these licensors regarding intellectual property subject to a license agreement, including those relating to:

37

If disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements, particularly with MD Anderson and Precigen, on acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected potential products. We are generally also subject to all of the same risks with respect to protection of intellectual property that we license as we are for intellectual property that we own. If we or our licensors fail to adequately protect this intellectual property, our ability to commercialize potential products under our applicable licenses could suffer. There is a substantial amount of litigation involving patents and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, as well as administrative proceedings for challenging patents, including interference, derivation, and reexamination proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, or oppositions and other comparable proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. Recently, due to changes in U.S. law referred to as patent reform, new procedures including inter partes review and post-grant review have been implemented, which adds uncertainty to the possibility of challenge to our or our licensors’ patents in the future.

Clinical trials are very expensive, time-consuming, and difficult to design, initiate and implement.

Human clinical trials are very expensive and difficult to design, initiate and implement, in part because they are subject to rigorous regulatory requirements. The clinical trial start-up and process itself is also time-consuming and results are inherently uncertain. We estimate that clinical trials of our product candidates will take at least several years to complete. Furthermore, failure can occur at any stage of the trials, and we could encounter problems that cause us to delay the start of, abandon or repeat clinical trials. The commencement and completion of clinical trials may be delayed by several factors, including:

Success in preclinical testing and early clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical trials will be successful. In addition, we or the FDA may suspend our clinical trials at any time if it appears that we are exposing participants to unacceptable health risks or if the FDA finds deficiencies in our IND submission or in the conduct of these trials. In June 2018, we announced that the FDA placed our Phase 1 trial on clinical hold to evaluate CD19-specific CAR-T therapies manufactured using our rapid personalized manufacturing technology and requested additional information in support of the IND submission for the trial. Our business may be materially harmed if we or our partners are unable to adequately address the FDA’s requests for this trial in a timely manner.

See also “Risks Related to the Clinical Testing, Regulatory Approval and Manufacturing of our Product Candidates—Our product candidates are in various stages of clinical trials, which are very expensive and time-consuming. We cannot be certain when we will be able to submit a BLA, to the FDA and any failure or delay in completing clinical trials for our product candidates could harm our business.”

38

We may not be able to commercialize any products, generate significant revenues, or attain profitability.

To date, none of our product candidates have been approved for commercial sale in any country. The process to develop, obtain regulatory approval for, and commercialize potential product candidates is long, complex, and costly. Unless and until we receive approval from the FDA and/or other foreign regulatory authorities for our product candidates, we cannot sell our products and will not have product revenues. Even if we obtain regulatory approval for one or more of our product candidates, if we are unable to successfully commercialize our products, we may not be able to generate sufficient revenues to achieve or maintain profitability, or to continue our business without raising significant additional capital, which may not be available. Our failure to achieve or maintain profitability could negatively impact the trading price of our common stock.

Ethical, legal and social concerns about synthetic biologically engineered products could limit or prevent the use of our product candidates.

Our product candidates use an immuno-oncology platform. Public perception about the safety and environmental hazards of, and ethical concerns over, genetically engineered products could influence public acceptance of our product candidates. If we and our collaborators are not able to overcome the ethical, legal and social concerns relating to biological engineering, our product candidates may not be accepted. These concerns could result in increased expenses, regulatory scrutiny, delays or other impediments to the public acceptance and commercialization of our product candidates. Our ability to develop and commercialize products could be limited by public attitudes and governmental regulation.

The subject of genetically modified organisms has received negative publicity, which has aroused public debate. This adverse publicity could lead to greater regulation and trade restrictions on the development and commercialization of genetically altered products. Further, there is a risk that our product candidates could cause adverse health effects or other AEs, which could also lead to negative publicity.

The biological platform that we use may have significantly enhanced characteristics compared to those found in naturally occurring organisms, enzymes or microbes. While we believe we produce biological technologies only for use in a controlled laboratory and industrial environment, the release of such biological technologies into uncontrolled environments could have unintended consequences. Any adverse effect resulting from such a release could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition, and we may have exposure to liability for any resulting harm.

We will incur additional expenses in connection with our License Agreement with Precigen.

We expect our overall research and development expenses will continue to increase as we move forward with our research and development efforts under the License Agreement with Precigen. Although all human clinical trials are expensive and difficult to design and implement, we believe that due to complexity, costs associated with clinical trials for immuno-oncology products are greater than the corresponding costs associated with clinical trials for small-molecule candidates. We now control many of the activities previously performed by Precigen on our behalf, including the manufacturing of our products in development. As a result, we expect to add increased headcount to support these efforts, among other expenses, which would add to our research and development expenses going forward.

Although our forecasts for expenses and the sufficiency of our capital resources take into account our plans to develop products under the License Agreement, the actual costs associated therewith may be significantly in excess of forecasted amounts. In addition to the amount and timing of expenses related to the clinical trials, our actual cash requirements may vary materially from our current expectations for a number of other factors that may include, but are not limited to, changes in the focus and direction of our development programs, competitive and technical advances, costs associated with the development of our product candidates and costs of filing, prosecuting, defending and enforcing our intellectual property rights. If we exhaust our capital reserves more

39

quickly than anticipated, regardless of the reason, and we are unable to obtain additional financing on terms acceptable to us or at all, we will be unable to proceed with development of some or all of our product candidates on expected timelines and will be forced to prioritize among them.

We may incur additional expenses in connection with our License Agreement with MD Anderson.

Pursuant to the MD Anderson License with MD Anderson, we, together with Precigen, obtained an exclusive, worldwide license to certain technologies owned and licensed by MD Anderson including technologies relating to novel CAR⁺ T cell and TCR cell therapies arising from the laboratory of Laurence Cooper, M.D., Ph.D., who was then at MD Anderson, as well as either co-exclusive or non-exclusive licenses under certain related technologies. Pursuant to the MD Anderson License, we, together with Precigen, entered into a research and development agreement with MD Anderson pursuant to which we agreed to provide funding for certain research and development activities of MD Anderson for a period of three years from the date of the MD Anderson License, in an amount between $15.0 and $20.0 million per year. We made the final payment in January 2018.

Although our forecasts for expenses and the sufficiency of our capital resources takes into account the funds available at MD Anderson, our actual cash requirements may vary materially from our current expectations for a number of other factors that may include, but are not limited to, changes in the focus and direction of our development programs, competitive and technical advances, costs associated with the development of our product candidates and costs of filing, prosecuting, defending and enforcing our intellectual property rights. If we exhaust the funds available at MD Anderson more quickly than anticipated, regardless of the reason, and we are unable to obtain additional financing on terms acceptable to us or at all, we will be unable to proceed with development of some or all of our product candidates on expected timelines and will be forced to prioritize among them.

We may not be able to retain the rights licensed to us and Precigen by MD Anderson to technologies relating to CAR, T-cell therapies and other related technologies.

Under the MD Anderson License, we, together with Precigen, received an exclusive, worldwide license to certain technologies owned and licensed by MD Anderson including technologies relating to novel CAR⁺ T cell and TCR cell therapies arising from the laboratory of Laurence Cooper, M.D., Ph.D., who was then at MD Anderson, as well as either co-exclusive or non-exclusive licenses under certain related technologies. When combined with Precigen’s technology suite and Ziopharm’s clinically tested RTS^® interleukin 12 modules, the resulting proprietary methods and technologies may help realize the promise of genetically modified CAR⁺ T cells and TCR therapies by controlling cell expansion and activation in the body, minimizing off-target and unwanted on-target effects and toxicity while maximizing therapeutic efficacy. The term of the MD Anderson License expires on the last to occur of (a) the expiration of all patents licensed thereunder, or (b) the twentieth anniversary of the date of the MD Anderson License; provided, however, that following the expiration of the term, we and Precigen shall then have a fully-paid up, royalty free, perpetual, irrevocable and sublicensable license to use the licensed intellectual property thereunder.

After 10 years from the date of the MD Anderson License and subject to a 90-day cure period, MD Anderson will have the right to convert the MD Anderson License into a non-exclusive license if we and Precigen are not using commercially reasonable efforts to commercialize the licensed intellectual property on a case-by-case basis. After five years from the date of the MD Anderson License and subject to a 180-day cure period, MD Anderson will have the right to terminate the MD Anderson License with respect to specific technology(ies) funded by the government or subject to a third-party contract if we and Precigen are not meeting the diligence requirements in such funding agreement or contract, as applicable. MD Anderson may also terminate the agreement with written notice upon material breach by us or Precigen, if such breach has not been cured within 60 days of receiving such notice. In addition, the MD Anderson License will terminate upon the occurrence of certain insolvency events for both us or Precigen and may be terminated by the mutual written agreement of us, Precigen and MD Anderson.

40

There can be no assurance that we will be able to successfully perform under the MD Anderson License and if the MD Anderson License is terminated it may prevent us from achieving our business objectives.

We have a limited operating history upon which to base an investment decision.

We have not demonstrated an ability to perform the functions necessary for the successful commercialization of any product candidates. The successful commercialization of any product candidates will require us to perform a variety of functions, including:

Our operations have been limited to organizing and staffing our company, acquiring, developing and securing our proprietary product candidates, and undertaking preclinical and clinical trials of our product candidates. These operations provide a limited basis for you to assess our ability to commercialize our product candidates and the advisability of investing in our securities.

We may not be successful in establishing development and commercialization collaborations, which failure could adversely affect, and potentially prohibit, our ability to develop our product candidates.

Developing biopharmaceutical products and complementary technologies, conducting clinical trials, obtaining marketing approval, establishing manufacturing capabilities and marketing approved products is expensive and, therefore, we anticipate exploring collaborations with third parties that have alternative technologies, more resources and more experience than we do. In situations where we enter into a development and commercial collaboration arrangement for a product candidate or complementary technology, we may also seek to establish additional collaborations for development and commercialization in territories outside of those addressed by the first collaboration arrangement for such product candidate or technology. There are a limited number of potential partners, and we expect to face competition in seeking appropriate partners. If we are unable to enter into any development and commercial collaborations and/or sales and marketing arrangements on reasonable and acceptable terms, if at all, we may be unable to successfully develop and seek regulatory approval for our product candidates and/or effectively market and sell future approved products, if any, in some or all of the territories outside of the United States where it may otherwise be valuable to do so.

Because we currently do not have internal research capabilities, we are dependent upon pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies and academic and other researchers to sell or license us their product candidates and technology.

Proposing, negotiating, and implementing an economically viable product acquisition or license is a lengthy and complex process. We compete for partnering arrangements and license agreements with pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical, and biotechnology companies, many of which have significantly more experience than we do and have significantly more financial resources. Our competitors may have stronger relationships with certain third parties including academic research institutions, with whom we are interested in collaborating and may have, therefore, a competitive advantage in entering into partnering arrangements with those third parties. We may not be able to acquire rights to additional product candidates or complementary technology on terms that we find acceptable, or at all.

We expect that any product candidate to which we acquire rights will require significant additional development and other efforts prior to commercial sale, including extensive clinical testing and approval by the FDA and applicable foreign regulatory authorities. All product candidates are subject to the risks of failure inherent in

41

biopharmaceutical product development, including the possibility that the product candidate will not be shown to be sufficiently safe or effective for approval by regulatory authorities. Even if our product candidates are approved, they may not be economically manufactured or produced, or be successfully commercialized.

We actively evaluate complementary technologies to acquire or license. Such complementary technologies could significantly increase our capital requirements and place further strain on the time of our existing personnel, which may delay or otherwise adversely affect the development of our existing product candidates. We must manage our development efforts and clinical trials effectively, and hire, train and integrate additional management, administrative, and research and development personnel. We may not be able to accomplish these tasks, and our failure to accomplish any of them could prevent us from successfully growing.

We may not be able to successfully manage our growth.

In the future, if we are able to advance our product candidates to the point of, and thereafter through, clinical trials, we will need to expand our development, regulatory, manufacturing, marketing and sales capabilities or contract with third parties to provide for these capabilities. Any future growth will place a significant strain on our management and on our administrative, operational, and financial resources. Therefore, our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize our product candidates and to compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to manage any future growth effectively. To manage this growth, we must expand our facilities, augment our operational, financial and management systems, and hire and train additional qualified personnel. If we are unable to manage our growth effectively, our business may be harmed.

Our business will subject us to the risk of liability claims associated with the use of hazardous materials and chemicals.

Our contract research and development activities may involve the controlled use of hazardous materials and chemicals. Although we believe that our safety procedures for using, storing, handling and disposing of these materials comply with federal, state and local laws and regulations, we cannot completely eliminate the risk of accidental injury or contamination from these materials. In the event of such an accident, we could be held liable for any resulting damages and any liability could have a materially adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations. In addition, the federal, state and local laws and regulations governing the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of hazardous or radioactive materials and waste products may require our contractors to incur substantial compliance costs that could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We rely on key executive officers and scientific and medical advisors, and their knowledge of our business and technical expertise would be difficult to replace.

We are highly dependent on Dr. Laurence J.N. Cooper, our Chief Executive Officer; Dr. David Mauney, our President; and our principal scientific, regulatory, and medical advisors. Each of Drs. Cooper and Mauney may terminate their employment with us at any time, subject, however, to certain non-compete and non-solicitation covenants. The loss of the technical knowledge and management and industry expertise of each of Drs. Cooper or Mauney, or any of our other key personnel, could result in delays in product development, loss of customers and sales, and diversion of management resources, which could adversely affect our operating results. We do not carry “key person” life insurance policies on any of our officers or key employees.

If we are unable to hire additional qualified personnel, our ability to grow our business may be harmed.

We will need to hire additional qualified personnel with expertise in preclinical and clinical research and testing, government regulation, formulation and manufacturing, and eventually, sales and marketing. In particular, we expect to significantly expand our internal cell therapy capabilities in our Houston, Texas facilities by hiring additional research and development personnel. We compete for qualified individuals with numerous

42

biopharmaceutical companies, universities, and other research institutions. Competition for such individuals is intense and we cannot be certain that our search for such personnel will be successful. Attracting and retaining qualified personnel will be critical to our success. If we are unable to hire additional qualified personnel, our ability to grow our business may be harmed.

We may incur substantial liabilities and may be required to limit commercialization of our products in response to product liability lawsuits.

The testing and marketing of medical products entail an inherent risk of product liability. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of our products, if approved. Even a successful defense would require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

We currently carry clinical trial insurance and product liability insurance. However, an inability to renew our policies or to obtain sufficient insurance at an acceptable cost could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of pharmaceutical products that we develop, alone or with collaborators.

Our business and operations would suffer in the event of system failures.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems and those of our current and future contractors and consultants are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. While we are not aware of any such material system failure, accident or security breach to date, if such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our development programs and our business operations. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed or future clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. Likewise, we rely on third parties to manufacture our product candidates and conduct clinical trials, and similar events relating to their computer systems could also have a material adverse effect on our business. To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability and the further development and commercialization of our product candidates could be delayed.

RISKS RELATED TO THE CLINICAL TESTING, REGULATORY APPROVAL AND MANUFACTURING OF OUR PRODUCT CANDIDATES

If we are unable to obtain the necessary U.S. or worldwide regulatory approvals to commercialize any product candidate, our business will suffer.

We may not be able to obtain the approvals necessary to commercialize our product candidates, or any product candidate that we may acquire or develop in the future for commercial sale. We will need FDA approval to

43

commercialize our product candidates in the United States and approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign jurisdictions equivalent to the FDA to commercialize our product candidates in those jurisdictions. In order to obtain FDA approval of any product candidate, we must submit to the FDA a Biologics License Application, or BLA, demonstrating that the product candidate is safe for humans and effective for its intended use. This demonstration requires significant research and animal tests, which are referred to as preclinical studies, as well as human tests, which are referred to as clinical trials. Satisfaction of the FDA’s regulatory requirements typically takes many years, depending upon the type, complexity, and novelty of the product candidate, and will require substantial resources for research, development, and testing. We cannot predict whether our research, development, and clinical approaches will result in products that the FDA will consider safe for humans and effective for their intended uses. The FDA has substantial discretion in the approval process and may require us to conduct additional preclinical and clinical testing or to perform post-marketing studies. The approval process may also be delayed by changes in government regulation, future legislation, or administrative action or changes in FDA policy that occur prior to or during our regulatory review. Delays in obtaining regulatory approvals may:

Even if we comply with all FDA requests, the FDA may ultimately reject one or more of our BLAs. We cannot be sure that we will ever obtain regulatory approval for any of our product candidates. Failure to obtain FDA approval for our product candidates will severely undermine our business by leaving us without a saleable product, and therefore without any potential revenue source, until another product candidate can be developed. There is no guarantee that we will ever be able to develop or acquire another product candidate or that we will obtain FDA approval if we are able to do so.

In foreign jurisdictions, we similarly must receive approval from applicable regulatory authorities before we can commercialize any of our product candidates. Foreign regulatory approval processes generally include all of the risks associated with the FDA approval procedures described above.

Our product candidates are in various stages of clinical trials, which are very expensive and time-consuming. We cannot be certain when we will be able to submit a BLA to the FDA and any failure or delay in completing clinical trials for our product candidates could harm our business.

Our product candidates are in various stages of development and require extensive clinical testing. Notwithstanding our current clinical trial plans for each of our existing product candidates, we may not be able to commence additional trials or see results from these trials within our anticipated timelines. As they enter later stages of development, our product candidates generally will become subject to more stringent regulatory requirements, including the FDA’s requirements for chemistry, manufacturing and controls for product candidates entering Phase 3 clinical trials. There is no guarantee the FDA will allow us to commence Phase 3 clinical trials for product candidates studied in early clinical trials. If the FDA does not allow our product candidates to enter later stage clinical trials, or requires changes to the formulation or manufacture of our product candidates before commencing Phase 3 clinical trials, our ability to further develop, or seek approval for, such product candidates may be materially impacted. As such, we cannot predict with any certainty if or when we might submit a BLA for regulatory approval of our product candidates or whether such a BLA will be accepted. Because we do not anticipate generating revenues unless and until we submit one or more BLAs and thereafter obtain requisite FDA approvals, the timing of our BLA submissions and FDA determinations regarding approval thereof, will directly affect if and when we are able to generate revenues.

44

Our product candidates may cause undesirable side effects or have other properties that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval, limit the commercial profile of an approved label, or result in significant negative consequences following any potential marketing approval.

As with many pharmaceutical and biological products, treatment with our product candidates may produce undesirable side effects or adverse reactions or events, including potential adverse side effects related to cytokine release. If our product candidates or similar products or product candidates under development by third parties demonstrate unacceptable AEs, we may be required to halt or delay further clinical development of our product candidates. The FDA or other foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications.

The product-related side effects could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. In addition, these side effects may not be appropriately or timely recognized or managed by the treating medical staff, particularly outside of the institutions that collaborate with us, as toxicities resulting from our novel technologies may not be normally encountered in the general patient population and by medical personnel. We expect to have to train medical personnel using our product candidates to understand their side effect profiles, both for our planned clinical trials and upon any commercialization of any product candidates. Inadequate training in recognizing or managing the potential side effects of our product candidates could result in adverse effects to patients, including death.

Additionally, if one or more of our product candidates receives marketing approval, and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by such products, including during any long-term follow-up observation period recommended or required for patients who receive treatment using our products, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

Any of the foregoing could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the particular product candidate, if approved. Furthermore, any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Our cell-based and gene therapy immuno-oncology products rely on the availability of reagents, specialized equipment, and other specialty materials and infrastructure, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. For some of these reagents, equipment, and materials, we rely or may rely on sole source vendors or a limited number of vendors, which could impair our ability to manufacture and supply our products.

Manufacturing our product candidates will require many reagents, which are substances used in our manufacturing processes to bring about chemical or biological reactions, and other specialty materials and equipment, some of which are manufactured or supplied by small companies with limited resources and experience to support commercial biologics production. We currently depend on a limited number of vendors for certain materials and equipment used in the manufacture of our product candidates. Some of these suppliers may not have the capacity to support commercial products manufactured under current good manufacturing practices by biopharmaceutical firms or may otherwise be ill-equipped to support our needs. We also do not have supply contracts with many of these suppliers and may not be able to obtain supply contracts with them on acceptable

45

terms or at all. Accordingly, we may experience delays in receiving key materials and equipment to support clinical or commercial manufacturing.

For some of these reagents, equipment, infrastructure, and materials, we rely and may in the future rely on sole source vendors or a limited number of vendors. An inability to continue to source product from any of these suppliers, which could be due to regulatory actions or requirements affecting the supplier, adverse financial or other strategic developments experienced by a supplier, labor disputes or shortages, unexpected demands, or quality issues, could adversely affect our ability to satisfy demand for our product candidates, which could adversely and materially affect our product sales and operating results or our ability to conduct clinical trials, either of which could significantly harm our business.

As we continue to develop and scale our manufacturing process, we expect that we will need to obtain rights to and supplies of certain materials and equipment to be used as part of that process. We may not be able to obtain rights to such materials on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, and if we are unable to alter our process in a commercially viable manner to avoid the use of such materials or find a suitable substitute, it would have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we are able to alter our process so as to use other materials or equipment, such a change may lead to a delay in our clinical development and/or commercialization plans. If such a change occurs for product candidate that is already in clinical testing, the change may require us to perform both ex vivo comparability studies and to collect additional data from patients prior to undertaking more advanced clinical trials.

The results of our clinical trials may not support our product candidate claims.

Even if our clinical trials are completed as planned, we cannot be certain that their results will support approval of our product candidates. The FDA normally expects two randomized, well-controlled Phase 3 pivotal trials in support of approval of a BLA. Success in preclinical testing and early clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical trials will be successful, and we cannot be certain that the results of later clinical trials will replicate the results of prior clinical trials and preclinical testing. The clinical trial process may fail to demonstrate that our product candidates are safe for humans and effective for the indicated uses. This failure would cause us to abandon a product candidate and may delay development of other product candidates. Any delay in, or termination of, our clinical trials will delay the submission of our BLAs with the FDA and, ultimately, our ability to commercialize our product candidates and generate product revenues. In addition, our clinical trials involve small patient populations. Because of the small sample size, the results of these clinical trials may not be indicative of future results.

Our immuno-oncology product candidates are based on a novel technology, which makes it difficult to predict the time and cost of product candidate development and subsequently obtaining regulatory approval. Currently, few gene therapy and cell therapy products have been approved in the United States and Europe.

We are currently focused on developing products in immuno-oncology that employ novel gene expression, control and cell technologies to deliver safe, effective and scalable cell- and viral-based therapies for the treatment of cancer. Due to the novelty of this medical technology, there can be no assurance that any development problems we experience in the future related to our immuno-oncology platforms will not cause significant delays or unanticipated costs, or that such development problems can be solved. We may also experience unanticipated problems or delays in expanding our manufacturing capacity or transferring our manufacturing process to commercial partners, which may prevent us from completing our clinical trials or commercializing our immuno-oncology product candidates on a timely or profitable basis, if at all.

In addition, the clinical study requirements of the FDA, the EMA and other regulatory agencies and the criteria these regulators use to determine the safety and efficacy of a product candidate vary substantially according to the type, complexity, novelty and intended use and market of the potential products. The regulatory approval process for novel product candidates such as ours can be more expensive and take longer than for other, better known or extensively studied pharmaceutical or other product candidates. These factors make it difficult to

46

determine how long it will take or how much it will cost to obtain regulatory approvals for our product candidates in either the United States or Europe. Approvals by the EMA may not be indicative of what the FDA may require for approval.

Regulatory requirements governing gene and cell therapy products have changed frequently and may continue to change in the future. For example, the FDA has established the Office of Tissue and Advanced Therapies within its Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, or CBER, to consolidate the review of gene therapy and related products, and the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to advise CBER on its review. Also, before a clinical trial can begin at an institution, that institution’s institutional review board, or IRB, and its Institutional Biosafety Committee will have to review the proposed clinical trial to assess the safety of the trial. In addition, adverse developments in clinical trials of gene therapy products conducted by others may cause the FDA or other regulatory bodies to change the requirements for approval of any of our product candidates.

These regulatory review committees and advisory groups and the new guidelines they promulgate may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional studies, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of these treatment candidates or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions. As we advance our immuno-oncology product candidates, we will be required to consult with these regulatory and advisory groups, and comply with applicable guidelines. If we fail to do so, we may be required to delay or discontinue development of our product candidates. These additional processes may result in a review and approval process that is longer than we otherwise would have expected for oncology product candidates. Delay or failure to obtain, or unexpected costs in obtaining, the regulatory approval necessary to bring a potential product to market could decrease our ability to generate sufficient product revenue to maintain our business.

Because we are dependent upon clinical research institutions and other contractors for clinical testing and for research and development activities, the results of our clinical trials and such research activities are, to a certain extent, beyond our control.

We materially rely upon independent investigators and collaborators, such as universities and medical institutions, to conduct our preclinical and clinical trials under agreements with us. These collaborators are not our employees and we cannot control the amount or timing of resources that they devote to our programs. These investigators may not assign as great a priority to our programs or pursue them as diligently as we would if we were undertaking such programs ourselves. If outside collaborators fail to devote sufficient time and resources to our product development programs, or if their performance is substandard, the approval of our FDA applications, if any, and our introduction of new products, if any, will be delayed. These collaborators may also have relationships with other commercial entities, some of whom may compete with us. If our collaborators assist our competitors to our detriment, our competitive position would be harmed.

Our reliance on third parties to formulate and manufacture our product candidates exposes us to a number of risks that may delay the development, regulatory approval and commercialization of our products or result in higher product costs.

We have limited experience in biopharmaceutical manufacturing. We currently lack the internal resources and expertise to formulate or manufacture our own product candidates and, therefore, contract the manufacture of our product candidates with third parties. We intend to contract with one or more manufacturers to manufacture, supply, store, and distribute supplies for our clinical trials. If a product candidate we develop or acquire in the future receives FDA approval, we may rely on one or more third-party contractors to manufacture our products. Our anticipated future reliance on a limited number of third-party manufacturers exposes us to the following risks:

47

Each of these risks could delay our clinical trials, the approval, if any, of our product candidates by the FDA or the commercialization of our product candidates or result in higher costs or deprive us of potential product revenues.

Any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval could be subject to post-marketing restrictions or withdrawal from the market and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or if we experience unanticipated problems with our products, when and if any of them are approved.

Any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval, along with the manufacturing processes, post-approval clinical data, labeling, advertising and promotional activities for such product, will be subject to continual requirements of and review by the FDA and other regulatory authorities. These requirements include, among other things, submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration and listing requirements, cGMP requirements relating to manufacturing, quality control, quality assurance and corresponding maintenance of records and documents, requirements regarding the distribution of samples to physicians and recordkeeping. Even if marketing approval of a product candidate is granted, the approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, including the requirement to implement a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, which could include requirements for a restricted distribution system. If any of our product candidates receives marketing approval, the accompanying label may limit the approved uses, which could limit sales of the product.

The FDA may also impose requirements for costly post-marketing studies or clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of our approved products. The FDA closely regulates the post-approval marketing and promotion of products to ensure that they are marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling. However, companies may share truthful and not misleading information that is otherwise consistent with the labeling. The FDA imposes stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding off-label use and if we market our products outside of their approved

48

indications, we may be subject to enforcement action for off-label marketing. Violations of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act relating to the promotion of prescription drugs may lead to investigations alleging violations of federal and state health care fraud and abuse laws, as well as state consumer protection laws.

In addition, later discovery of previously unknown AEs or other problems with our products, manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may yield various results, including:

Noncompliance with requirements regarding safety monitoring or pharmacovigilance can also result in significant financial penalties. Similarly, failure to comply with U.S. and foreign regulatory requirements regarding the development of products for pediatric populations and the protection of personal health information can also lead to significant penalties and sanctions.

RISKS RELATED TO OUR ABILITY TO COMMERCIALIZE OUR PRODUCT CANDIDATES

If we are unable either to create sales, marketing and distribution capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to perform these functions, we will be unable to commercialize our product candidates successfully.

We currently have no marketing, sales, or distribution capabilities. If and when we become reasonably certain that we will be able to commercialize our current or future product candidates, we anticipate allocating resources to the marketing, sales and distribution of our proposed products in North America and in certain other countries; however, we cannot assure that we will be able to market, sell, and distribute our products successfully. Our future success also may depend, in part, on our ability to enter into and maintain collaborative relationships for such capabilities and to encourage the collaborator’s strategic interest in the products under development, and such collaborator’s ability to successfully market and sell any such products. Although we intend to pursue certain collaborative arrangements regarding the sale and marketing of certain of our product candidates, there are no assurances that we will be able to establish or maintain collaborative arrangements or, if we are able to do so, whether we would be able to conduct our own sales efforts. There can also be no assurance that we will be

49

able to establish or maintain relationships with third-party collaborators or develop in-house sales and distribution capabilities. To the extent that we depend on third parties for marketing and distribution, any revenues we receive will depend upon the efforts of such third parties, and there can be no assurance that such efforts will be successful. In addition, there can also be no assurance that we will be able to market and sell our product candidates in the United States or overseas.

If we are not able to partner with a third party and are not successful in recruiting sales and marketing personnel or in building a sales and marketing infrastructure, we will have difficulty commercializing our product candidates, which would harm our business. If we rely on pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies with established distribution systems to market our products, we will need to establish and maintain partnership arrangements, and we may not be able to enter into these arrangements on acceptable terms or at all. To the extent that we enter into co-promotion or other arrangements, any revenues we receive will depend upon the efforts of third parties that may not be successful and that will be only partially in our control.

If we cannot compete successfully for market share against other biopharmaceutical companies, we may not achieve sufficient product revenues and our business will suffer.

The market for our product candidates is characterized by intense competition and rapid technological advances. If a product candidate receives FDA approval, it will compete with a number of existing and future products and therapies developed, manufactured and marketed by others. Existing or future competing products may provide greater therapeutic convenience or clinical or other benefits for a specific indication than our products or may offer comparable performance at a lower cost. If our products fail to capture and maintain market share, we may not achieve sufficient product revenues and our business will suffer.

We will compete against fully integrated pharmaceutical companies and smaller companies that are collaborating with larger pharmaceutical companies, academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations. Many of these competitors have products already approved or in development. In addition, many of these competitors, either alone or together with their collaborative partners, operate larger research and development programs or have substantially greater financial resources than we do, as well as significantly greater experience in:

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. In addition, our ability to compete may be affected in many cases by insurers or other third-party payors seeking to encourage the use of generic products.

If physicians and patients do not accept and use our product candidates, our ability to generate revenue from sales of our products will be materially impaired.

Even if the FDA and/or foreign equivalents thereof approve our product candidates, physicians and patients may not accept and use them. Acceptance and use of our products will depend upon a number of factors including:

50

Because we expect sales of our current product candidates, if approved, to generate substantially all of our product revenues for the foreseeable future, the failure of a product to find market acceptance would harm our business and could require us to seek additional financing in order to fund the development of future product candidates.

Our ability to generate product revenues will be diminished if our products do not obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement from payors.

Our ability to commercialize our product candidates, if approved, alone or with collaborators, will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and reimbursement will be available from third-party payors, including government and health administration authorities, private health maintenance organizations and health insurers and other payors.

Patients who are prescribed medicine for the treatment of their conditions generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their prescription drugs. Sufficient coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors are critical to new product acceptance. Coverage decisions may depend upon clinical and economic standards that disfavor new drug products when more established or lower cost therapeutic alternatives are already available or subsequently become available. It is difficult to predict the coverage and reimbursement decisions that will be made by third-party payors for novel gene and cell therapy products such as ours. Even if we obtain coverage for our product candidates, the resulting reimbursement payment rates might not be adequate or may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high. Patients are unlikely to use our product candidates unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of our product candidates.

In addition, the market for our product candidates for which we may receive regulatory approval will depend significantly on access to third-party payors’ drug formularies or lists of medications for which third-party payors provide coverage and reimbursement, which might not include all of the FDA-approved drugs for a particular indication. The industry competition to be included in such formularies often leads to downward pricing pressures on pharmaceutical companies. Also, third-party payors may refuse to include a particular branded drug in their formularies or otherwise restrict patient access to a branded drug when a less costly generic equivalent or other alternative is available.

Third-party payors, whether foreign or domestic, or governmental or commercial, are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs. In addition, in the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists among third-party payors. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that requires us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, with no assurance that approval will be obtained. If we are unable to obtain coverage of and adequate payment levels for our product candidates from third-party payors, physicians may limit how much or under what circumstances they will prescribe or administer our products and patients may decline to purchase them. This in turn could affect our ability to successfully commercialize our products and impact our profitability, results of operations, financial condition, and future success.

In addition, in many foreign countries, particularly the countries of the EU, the pricing of prescription drugs is subject to government control. In some non-U.S. jurisdictions, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved

51

before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing drug pricing vary widely from country to country. For example, the EU provides options for its member states to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. A member state may approve a specific price for the medicinal product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. We may face competition for our product candidates from lower-priced products in foreign countries that have placed price controls on pharmaceutical products. In addition, there may be importation of foreign products that compete with our own products, which could negatively impact our profitability.

The market opportunities for our product candidates may be limited to those patients who are ineligible for or have failed prior treatments and may be small.

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 cancer is detected early enough, first line therapy is sometimes adequate to cure the cancer or prolong life without a cure. Whenever first line therapy, usually chemotherapy, hormone therapy, surgery, or a combination of these, proves unsuccessful, second line therapy may be administered. Second line therapies often consist of more chemotherapy, radiation, antibody drugs, tumor targeted small molecules, or a combination of these. Third line therapies can include bone marrow transplantation, antibody and small molecule targeted therapies, more invasive forms of surgery, and new technologies. We expect to initially seek approval of our product candidates as a third line therapy for patients who have failed other approved treatments.

Subsequently, for those products that prove to be sufficiently beneficial, if any, we would expect to seek approval as a second line therapy and potentially as a first line therapy, but there is no guarantee that our product candidates, even if approved, would be approved for second line or first line therapy. In addition, we may have to conduct additional clinical trials prior to gaining approval for second line or first line therapy.

Our projections of both the number of people who have the cancers we are targeting, as well as the subset of people with these cancers in a position to receive third 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 lower 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 profitability without obtaining regulatory approval for additional indications, including use as a first- or second-line therapy.

Our market opportunities may also be limited by competitor treatments that may enter the market. See also “Risks Related to Our Ability to Commercialize Our Product Candidates—If we cannot compete successfully for market share against other biopharmaceutical companies, we may not achieve sufficient product revenues and our business will suffer.”

Healthcare legislative reform measures may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

In both the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory enactments in recent years that change the healthcare system in ways that could impact our future ability to sell our product candidates profitably.

Furthermore, there have been and continue to be a number of initiatives at the federal and state level that seek to reduce healthcare costs. Most significantly, in March 2010, President Obama signed into law the Patient

52

Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively the ACA, which included measures that have significantly changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers. Among the provisions of the ACA of importance to the pharmaceutical industry are the following:

Some of the provisions of the ACA have yet to be implemented, and there have been legal and political challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. Since January 2017, President Trump has signed two executive orders and other directives designed to delay, circumvent, or loosen certain requirements mandated by the ACA. Concurrently, Congress has considered legislation that would repeal or repeal and replace all or part of the ACA. While Congress has not passed repeal legislation, two bills affecting the implementation of certain taxes under

53

the ACA have been signed into law. In December 2017, Congress repealed the tax penalty, effective January 1, 2019, for an individual’s failure to maintain ACA-mandated health insurance as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, or Tax Act. On January 22, 2018, President Trump signed a continuing resolution on appropriations for fiscal year 2018 that delayed the implementation of certain ACA-mandated fees, including the so-called “Cadillac” tax on certain high cost employer-sponsored insurance plans and the annual fee imposed on certain health insurance providers based on market share. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, or the BBA, among other things, amended the ACA, effective January 1, 2019, to increase from 50 percent to 70 percent the point-of-sale discount that is owed by pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D and close the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the “donut hole”. In July 2018, CMS published a final rule permitting further collections and payments to and from certain ACA qualified health plans and health insurance issuers under the ACA risk adjustment program in response to the outcome of federal district court litigation regarding the method CMS uses to determine this risk adjustment. On December 14, 2018, a Texas U.S. District Court Judge ruled that ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress as part of the Tax Act. While the Texas U.S. District Court Judge, as well as the Trump administration and CMS, have stated that the ruling will have no immediate effect pending appeal of the decision, it is unclear how this decision, subsequent appeals, and other efforts to repeal and replace ACA will impact ACA and our business. The ultimate content, timing or effect of any healthcare reform legislation on the U.S. healthcare industry is unclear.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. For example, in August 2011, President Obama signed into law the Budget Control Act of 2011, which, among other things, created the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to recommend proposals in spending reductions to Congress. The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction did not achieve its targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, triggering the legislation’s automatic reductions to several government programs. These reductions include aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect on April 1, 2013, and, due to subsequent legislative amendments, including the BBA, will stay in effect through 2027 unless additional Congressional action is taken. In January 2013, President Obama signed into law the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

Further, there has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. As a result, there have been several U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. At the federal level, the Trump administration’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2019 contains further drug price control measures that could be enacted during the 2019 budget process or in other future legislation, including, for example, measures to permit Medicare Part D plans to negotiate the price of certain drugs under Medicare Part B, to allow some states to negotiate drug prices under Medicaid, and to eliminate cost sharing for generic drugs for low-income patients. Further, the Trump administration released a “Blueprint”, or plan, to lower drug prices and reduce out of pocket costs of drugs that contains additional proposals to increase drug manufacturer competition, increase the negotiating power of certain federal healthcare programs, incentivize manufacturers to lower the list price of their products, and reduce the out of pocket costs of drug products paid by consumers. The Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, has already started the process of soliciting feedback on some of these measures and, at the same, is immediately implementing others under its existing authority. For example, in September 2018, CMS announced that it will allow Medicare Advantage plans the option to use step therapy for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2019, and in October 2018, CMS proposed a new rule that would require direct-to-consumer television advertisements of prescription drugs and biological products, for which payment is available through or under Medicare or Medicaid, to include in the advertisement the Wholesale Acquisition Cost, or list price, of that drug or biological product. On January 31, 2019, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, proposed modifications to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute discount safe harbor for the

54

purpose of reducing the cost of drug products to consumers which, among other things, if finalized, will affect discounts paid by manufacturers to Medicare Part D plans, Medicaid managed care organizations and pharmacy benefit managers working with these organizations. While some of these, and other proposed, measures may require additional authorization through additional legislation to become effective, Congress and the Trump administration have each indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. Individual states in the United States have also increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

Additionally, on May 30, 2018, the Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act of 2017, or the Right to Try Act, was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational new drug products that have completed a Phase 1 clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA permission under the FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a manufacturer to make its products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act.

We expect that the ACA, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we may receive for any approved product. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or if we receive regulatory approval, commercialize our products.

If we fail to comply with federal and state healthcare laws, including fraud and abuse and health information privacy and security laws, we could face substantial penalties and our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects could be adversely affected.

As a pharmaceutical company, even though we do not and will not control referrals of healthcare services or bill directly to Medicare, Medicaid or other third-party payors, certain federal and state healthcare laws and regulations pertaining to fraud and abuse and patients’ rights are and will be applicable to our business. For example, we could be subject to healthcare fraud and abuse and patient privacy regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. The laws that may affect our ability to operate include, among others:

55

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities, including our consulting agreements with physicians, some of whom receive stock or stock options as compensation for their services, could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. In addition, recent health care reform legislation has further strengthened these laws. For example, the ACA, among other things, amended the intent requirement of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and certain criminal healthcare fraud statutes. A person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of this statute or specific intent to violate it. Moreover, the ACA provides that the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the False Claims Act.

To the extent that any of our product candidates is ultimately sold in a foreign country, we may be subject to similar foreign laws and regulations.

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements comply with applicable healthcare laws involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental and enforcement authorities will conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law interpreting applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, we may be subject to significant penalties, including administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from participation in United States federal or state health care programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, disgorgement, imprisonment, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations any of which could materially adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results. Although compliance programs can mitigate the risk of investigation and prosecution for violations of these laws, the risks cannot be entirely eliminated. Any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. Moreover, achieving and sustaining compliance with applicable federal and state privacy, security and fraud laws may prove costly.

56

Our immuno-oncology product candidates may face competition in the future from biosimilars.

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, provides an abbreviated pathway for the approval of follow-on biological products. Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product cannot be approved by the FDA until 12 years after the original branded product was approved under a BLA. However, there is a risk that the U.S. Congress could amend the BPCIA to significantly shorten this exclusivity period, potentially creating the opportunity for generic competition sooner than anticipated. Further, this data exclusivity does not prevent another company from developing a product that is highly similar to the original branded product, generating its own data and seeking approval. Data exclusivity only assures that another company cannot rely upon the data within the innovator’s application to support the biosimilar product’s approval.

RISKS RELATED TO OUR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

If we or our licensors fail to adequately protect or enforce our intellectual property rights or secure rights to patents of others, the value of our intellectual property rights would diminish and our ability to successfully commercialize our products may be impaired.

Our success, competitive position, and future revenues will depend in part on our ability and the abilities of our licensors to obtain and maintain patent protection for our products, methods, processes and other technologies, to preserve our trade secrets, to prevent third parties from infringing on our proprietary rights, and to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties.

To date, we have exclusive rights in the field of cancer treatment to certain U.S. and foreign intellectual property with respect to the Precigen technology, including Ad-RTS-IL-12 plus veledimex, and with respect to CAR⁺ T, NK and TCR cell therapies arising from the laboratory of Laurence Cooper, M.D., Ph.D., who was then at MD Anderson. Under our License Agreement with Precigen, Precigen has the right, but not the obligation, to prepare, file, prosecute, and maintain the patents and patent applications licensed to us and shall bear any related costs incurred by it in regard to those actions. Precigen is required to consult with us and keep us reasonably informed of the status of the patents and patent applications licensed to us, and to confer with us and incorporate our comments prior to submitting any related filings and correspondence. Although under the agreement Precigen has agreed to consider in good faith and consult with us regarding any comments we may have regarding these patents and patent applications, we cannot guarantee that our comments will be solicited or followed. Under the MD Anderson License, future filings and applications require the agreement of each of MD Anderson, Precigen and us, and MD Anderson has the right to control the preparation and filing of additional patent applications unless the parties agree that we or Precigen may prosecute the application directly. Although under the agreement MD Anderson has agreed to review and incorporate any reasonable comments that we or Precigen may have regarding these patents and patent applications, we cannot guarantee that our comments will be solicited or followed. Without direct control of the in-licensed patents and patent applications, we are dependent on Precigen or MD Anderson, as applicable, to keep us advised of prosecution, particularly in foreign jurisdictions where prosecution information may not be publicly available. We anticipate that we, Precigen and MD Anderson will file additional patent applications both in the United States and in other countries. However, we cannot predict or guarantee:

The patent prosecution process is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost, in a timely manner, or in all jurisdictions. It is

57

also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Moreover, in some circumstances, we do not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, covering technology that we license from third parties. We may also require the cooperation of our licensors in order to enforce the licensed patent rights, and such cooperation may not be provided. Therefore, these patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business.

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. In addition, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States and we may fail to seek or obtain patent protection in all major markets. For example, European patent law restricts the patentability of methods of treatment of the human body more than United States law does. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all.

Changes in patent laws or in interpretations of patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our intellectual property or narrow the scope of our patent protection. In September 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, was signed into law, resulting in a number of significant changes to United States patent law. These changes include provisions that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. In addition, the United States Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. This combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained, and with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future. As the USPTO continues to implement the Leahy-Smith Act, and as the federal courts have the opportunity to interpret the Leahy-Smith Act, the laws and regulations governing patents, and the rules regarding patent procurement could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future.

Certain technologies utilized in our research and development programs are already in the public domain. Moreover, a number of our competitors have developed technologies, filed patent applications or obtained patents on technologies, compositions and methods of use that are related to our business and may cover or conflict with our owned or licensed patent applications, technologies or product candidates. Such conflicts could limit the scope of the patents that we may be able to obtain or may result in the rejection of claims in our patent applications. Because patent applications in the United States and many foreign jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all, and because publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind actual discoveries, neither we nor our licensors can be certain that others have not filed or maintained patent applications for technology used by us or covered by our pending patent applications without our being aware of these applications. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our owned patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions, nor can we know whether those from whom we license patents were the first to make the inventions claimed or were the first to file. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued which protect our technology or products, in whole or in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection. In addition, our own earlier filed patents and applications or those of Precigen or MD Anderson may limit the scope of later patents we obtain or may result in the rejection of claims in our later filed patent applications. If third parties filed patent applications or obtained patents on technologies, compositions and methods of use that are related to our business and that cover or conflict with our owned or licensed patent applications, technologies or product

58

candidates, we may be required to challenge such protection, terminate or modify our programs impacted by such protection or obtain licenses from such third parties, which might not be available on acceptable terms, or at all.

Even if our owned and licensed patent applications issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors from competing with us or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Our competitors may be able to circumvent our owned or licensed patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner.

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our owned and licensed patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. Such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or freedom to operate or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and products. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, our business and competitive position would be harmed.

Our success also depends upon the skills, knowledge, and experience of our scientific and technical personnel, our consultants and advisors, as well as our licensors and contractors. To help protect our proprietary know-how and our inventions for which patents may be unobtainable or difficult to obtain, and to maintain our competitive position, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements. To this end, it is our general policy to require our employees, consultants, advisors, and contractors to enter into agreements that prohibit the disclosure of confidential information and, where applicable, require disclosure and assignment to us of the ideas, developments, discoveries, and inventions important to our business. These agreements may not provide adequate protection for our trade secrets, know-how or other proprietary information in the event of any unauthorized use or disclosure or the lawful development by others of such information. Moreover, we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for any breaches of these agreements. Our trade secrets may also be obtained by third parties by other means, such as breaches of our physical or computer security systems. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets, know-how or other proprietary information is disclosed, the value of our trade secrets, know-how and other proprietary rights would be significantly impaired and our business and competitive position would suffer.

Third-party claims of intellectual property infringement would require us to spend significant time and money and could prevent us from developing or commercializing our products.

In order to protect or enforce patent rights, we may initiate patent infringement litigation against third parties. Similarly, we may be sued by others for patent infringement. We also may become subject to proceedings conducted in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, including interference proceedings to determine the priority or derivation of inventions, or post-grant review, inter partes review, or reexamination proceedings reviewing the patentability of our patented claims. In addition, any foreign patents that are granted may become subject to opposition, nullity, or revocation proceedings in foreign jurisdictions having such proceedings. The defense and prosecution, if necessary, of intellectual property actions are costly and divert technical and management personnel away from their normal responsibilities.

59

Our commercial success depends upon our ability, and the ability of our collaborators, to develop, manufacture, market and sell our product candidates without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. There is considerable intellectual property litigation in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. While no such litigation has been brought against us and we have not been held by any court to have infringed a third party’s intellectual property rights, we cannot guarantee that our products or use of our products do not infringe third-party patents. It is also possible that we have failed to identify relevant third-party patents or applications. For example, applications filed before November 29, 2000 and certain applications filed after that date that will not be filed outside the United States remain confidential until patents issue. Patent applications in the United States and elsewhere are published approximately 18 months after the earliest filing, which is referred to as the priority date. Therefore, patent applications covering our products or technology could have been filed by others without our knowledge. Additionally, pending patent applications which have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our products or the use of our products.

Our research, development and commercialization activities, as well as any product candidates or products resulting from these activities, may infringe or be claimed to infringe patents or patent applications under which we do not hold licenses or other rights. Patents do not protect its owner from a claim of infringement of another owner’s patent. Therefore, our patent position cannot and does not provide any assurance that we are not infringing the patent rights of another.

The patent landscape in the field of immuno-oncology is particularly complex. We are aware of numerous United States and foreign patents and pending patent applications of third parties that cover compositions, methods of use and methods of manufacture of immuno-oncology. In addition, there may be patents and patent applications in the field of which we are not aware. The technology we license from Precigen and MD Anderson is early-stage technology and we are in the process of designing and developing products using this technology. Although we will seek to avoid pursuing the development of products that may infringe any patent claims that we believe to be valid and enforceable, we may fail to do so. Moreover, given the breadth and number of claims in patents and pending patent applications in the field of immuno-oncology and the complexities and uncertainties associated with them, third parties may allege that we are infringing upon patent claims even if we do not believe such claims to be valid and enforceable.

If a claim for patent infringement is asserted, there can be no assurance that the resolution of the claim would permit us to continue marketing the relevant product on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. We may not have sufficient resources to bring these actions to a successful conclusion. If we do not successfully defend any infringement actions to which we become a party or are unable to have infringed patents declared invalid or unenforceable, we may have to pay substantial monetary damages, which can be tripled if the infringement is deemed willful or be required to discontinue or significantly delay commercialization and development of the affected products.

Any legal action against us or our collaborators claiming damages and seeking to enjoin developmental or marketing activities relating to affected products could, in addition to subjecting us to potential liability for damages, require us or our collaborators to obtain licenses to continue to develop, manufacture, or market the affected products. Such a license may not be available to us on commercially reasonable terms, if at all.

An adverse determination in a proceeding involving our owned or licensed intellectual property may allow entry of generic substitutes for our products.

Obtaining and maintaining our patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, document submission, fee payment and other requirements imposed by governmental patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for noncompliance with these requirements.

Periodic maintenance fees on any issued patent are due to be paid to the USPTO and foreign patent agencies in several stages over the lifetime of the patent. The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies

60

require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. While an inadvertent lapse can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Noncompliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include, but are not limited to, failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. In such an event, our competitors might be able to enter the market, which would have a material adverse effect on our business.

If we breach any of the agreements under which we license rights to products or technology from others, we could lose license rights that are material to our business or be subject to claims by our licensors.

We license rights to products and technology that are important to our business, and we expect to enter into additional licenses in the future. For instance, we have exclusively licensed patents and patent applications under our License Agreement with Precigen as well as under the MD Anderson License. Under these agreements, we are subject to a range of commercialization and development, sublicensing, royalty, patent prosecution and maintenance, insurance and other obligations.

Any failure by us to comply with any of these obligations or any other breach by us of our license agreements could give the licensor the right to terminate the license in whole, terminate the exclusive nature of the license or bring a claim against us for damages. Any such termination or claim could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, liquidity or business. Even if we contest any such termination or claim and are ultimately successful, such dispute could lead to delays in the development or commercialization of potential products and result in time-consuming and expensive litigation or arbitration. On termination we may be required to license to the licensor any related intellectual property that we developed.

In addition, in certain cases, the rights licensed to us are rights of a third party licensed to our licensor. In such instances, if our licensors do not comply with their obligations under such licenses, our rights under our license agreements with our licensor may be adversely affected.

We may be subject to claims by third parties asserting that our employees or we have misappropriated their intellectual property or claiming ownership of what we regard as our own intellectual property.

Many of our employees were previously employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that these employees or we have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such employee’s former employer. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims.

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

If we fail in prosecuting or defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Even if we are successful in prosecuting or defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

61

OTHER RISKS RELATED TO OUR COMPANY

Our stock price has been, and may continue to be, volatile.

The market price for our common stock is volatile and may fluctuate significantly in response to a number of factors, most of which we cannot control, including:

In addition, the stock market from time to time experiences significant price and volume fluctuations unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. The stock markets, and in particular the Nasdaq Capital Market, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have affected and continue to affect the market prices of equity securities of many biopharmaceutical companies. Stock prices of many biopharmaceutical companies have fluctuated in a manner unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of those companies. In the past, stockholders have instituted securities class action litigation following periods of market volatility. If we were involved in securities litigation, we could incur substantial costs and our resources, and the attention of management could be diverted from our business.

62

Anti-takeover provisions in our charter documents and under Delaware law may make an acquisition of us, which may be beneficial to our stockholders, more difficult.

Provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and bylaws, as well as provisions of Delaware law, could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire us, even if doing so would benefit our stockholders. These provisions authorize the issuance of “blank check” preferred stock that could be issued by our board of directors to increase the number of outstanding shares and hinder a takeover attempt, and limit who may call a special meeting of stockholders. In addition, Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law generally prohibits a publicly-held Delaware corporation from engaging in a business combination with a party that owns at least 15% of its common stock unless the business combination is approved by the company’s board of directors before the person acquires the 15% ownership stake or later by its board of directors and two-thirds of its stockholders. Section 203 could have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control that our stockholders might consider to be in their best interests.

Because we do not expect to pay dividends, you will not realize any income from an investment in our common stock unless and until you sell your shares at profit.

We have never paid dividends on our common stock and we do not anticipate that we will pay any dividends for the foreseeable future. Accordingly, any return on an investment in us will be realized, if at all, only when you sell shares of our common stock.

Our ability to use net operating loss carryforwards and research tax credits to reduce future tax payments may be limited or restricted.

We have generated significant net operating loss carryforwards, or NOLs, and research and development tax credits, or R&D credits, as a result of our incurrence of losses and our conduct of research activities since inception. We generally are able to carry NOLs and R&D credits forward to reduce our tax liability in future years. However, our ability to utilize the NOLs and R&D credits is subject to the rules of Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, respectively. Those sections generally restrict the use of NOLs and R&D credits after an “ownership change.” An ownership change occurs if, among other things, the stockholders (or specified groups of stockholders) who own or have owned, directly or indirectly, 5% or more of a corporation’s common stock or are otherwise treated as 5% stockholders under Section 382 of the code and the United States Treasury Department regulations promulgated thereunder increase their aggregate percentage ownership of that corporation’s stock by more than 50 percentage points over the lowest percentage of the stock owned by these stockholders over the applicable testing period. In the event of an ownership change, Section 382 imposes an annual limitation on the amount of taxable income a corporation may offset with NOL carry forwards and Section 383 imposes an annual limitation on the amount of tax a corporation may offset with business credit (including the R&D credit) carry forwards.

We may have experienced an “ownership change” within the meaning of Section 382 in the past and there can be no assurance that we will not experience additional ownership changes in the future. As a result, our NOLs and business credits (including the R&D credit) may be subject to limitations and we may be required to pay taxes earlier and in larger amounts than would be the case if our NOLs or R&D credits were freely usable.

If securities and/or industry analysts fail to continue publishing research about our business, if they change their recommendations adversely or if our results of operations do not meet their expectations, our stock price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our common stock will be influenced by the research and reports that industry or securities analysts publish about us or our business. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of our company or fail to publish reports on us regularly, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which in turn

63

could cause our stock price or trading volume to decline. In addition, it is likely that in some future period our operating results will be below the expectations of securities analysts or investors. If one or more of the analysts who cover us downgrade our stock, or if our results of operations do not meet their expectations, our stock price could decline.

Our principal stockholders, executive officers and directors have substantial control over the company, which may prevent you and other stockholders from influencing significant corporate decisions and may harm the market price of our common stock.

As of December 31, 2018, our executive officers, directors and holders of five percent or more of our outstanding common stock, beneficially owned, in the aggregate, 26.2% of our outstanding common stock. These stockholders may have interests that conflict with our other stockholders and, if acting together, have the ability to influence the outcome of matters submitted to our stockholders for approval, including the election and removal of directors and any merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets. Accordingly, this concentration of ownership may harm the market price of our common stock by:

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, signed into law in 2017 could adversely affect our business and financial condition.

On December 22, 2017, President Trump signed into law legislation, known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, or Tax Act, that significantly revises the Code. The federal income tax law is referred to as the Tax Act, and contains significant changes to corporate taxation, including reduction of the corporate tax rate from a top marginal rate of 35% to a flat rate of 21%, limitation of the tax deduction for interest expense to 30% of adjusted earnings (except for certain small businesses), limitation of the deduction for NOLs to 80% of current year taxable income and elimination of NOL carrybacks, one time taxation of offshore earnings at reduced rates regardless of whether they are repatriated, elimination of U.S. tax on foreign earnings (subject to certain important exceptions), immediate deductions for certain new investments instead of deductions for depreciation expense over time, and modifying or repealing many business deductions and credits. Notwithstanding the reduction in the corporate income tax rate, the overall impact of the Tax Act is uncertain and our business and financial condition could be adversely affected. In addition, it is uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to the Tax Act. The impact of the Tax Act on holders of our common stock is also uncertain and could be adverse. We urge our stockholders to consult with their legal and tax advisors with respect to this legislation and the potential tax consequences of investing in or holding our common stock.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

None.

Item 2. Properties

Our corporate office is located at One First Avenue, Parris Building #34, Navy Yard Plaza, Boston, Massachusetts 02129. The Boston office is leased pursuant to a lease agreement that expires in August 2021. On December 21, 2015, we renewed a portion of the lease for Boston office through August 31, 2021 for $427 thousand, annually. We believe that our existing facilities are adequate to meet our current needs.

We also lease office space at MD Anderson in Houston, Texas pursuant to a lease agreement that expires in April 2021. Under the terms of the Houston lease agreement, we lease approximately two hundred and ten square

64

feet and are required to make rental payments at an average monthly rate of approximately $1 thousand. The monthly rent expense is deducted from our prepayment at MD Anderson. See Note 8 to the accompanying financial statements.

We are currently evaluating alternatives to expand our research and manufacturing capacities for our CAR-T and TCR programs. To support this expansion, we expect to lease additional facilities suitable for these efforts and we anticipate these facilities will be located in Houston, Texas.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

In the ordinary course of business, we may periodically become subject to legal proceedings and claims arising in connection with ongoing business activities. The results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, and unfavorable resolutions are possible and could materially affect our results of operations, cash flows or financial position. In addition, regardless of the outcome, litigation could have an adverse impact on us because of defense costs, diversion of management resources and other factors.

There are no matters, as of December 31, 2018, that, in the opinion of management, might have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operation or cash flows.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures

Not applicable.

65

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholders Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Record Holders

As of February 21, 2019, we had approximately 286 holders of record of our common stock, one of which was Cede & Co., a nominee for Depository Trust Company, or DTC. Shares of common stock that are held by financial institutions as nominees for beneficial owners are deposited into participant accounts at DTC and are considered to be held of record by Cede & Co. as one stockholder. As of February 21, 2019, we had approximately 28,718 beneficial holders of our common stock.

Dividends

We have never declared or paid a cash dividend on our common stock and do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

On November 11, 2018, we entered into a securities purchase agreement with certain institutional and accredited investors pursuant to which we agreed to issue and sell to the investors an aggregate of 18,939,394 immediately separable units at a price per unit of $2.64, for gross proceeds of approximately $50 million.    Each unit was comprised of (i) one share of our common stock, par value $0.001 per share and (ii) a warrant to purchase one share of our common stock. The warrants have a five-year term expiring on November 13, 2023 and have a per share exercise price of $3.01. The exercise price and number of shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of the warrants may be adjusted in certain circumstances, including stock splits, stock dividends, reclassifications and the like. The number of shares of our common stock that may be acquired upon any exercise of the warrants is generally limited to the extent necessary to ensure that, following such exercise, such person exercising the warrant would not, together with its affiliates and any other persons or entities whose beneficial ownership of our common stock would be aggregated with such person for purposes of Section 13(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, beneficially own in excess of 9.99% of the total number of shares of our common stock then issued and outstanding and/or the then combined voting power of all of our voting securities, which we refer to as the Exercise Limitation. The Exercise Limitation (i) may be increased, decreased or terminated, in each stockholder’s sole discretion, upon at least 61 days’ prior notice to us and (ii) terminates automatically on the date that is 15 days prior to the expiration of the warrants.

The securities issued by us pursuant to the securities purchase agreement and to be issued upon exercise of the warrants were not registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, and may not be offered or sold in the United States absent registration or an applicable exemption from registration requirements. When issuing the units, we relied on the private placement exemption from registration provided by Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act and by Rule 506 of Registration D, promulgated thereunder and on similar exemptions under applicable state laws and filed a Form D with the SEC on November 19, 2018. On February 7, 2019, we filed a registration statement on Form S-3 registering the resale of shares issued pursuant to the securities purchase agreement and the resale of shares that may be issued upon exercise of the warrants.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

During the three months ended December 31, 2018, we purchased an aggregate of 202,783 shares of restricted stock from certain employees and members of our board of directors to cover the applicable withholding taxes due from them for the shares of restricted stock at the time that the applicable forfeiture restrictions lapsed. The

66

following table provides information about these purchases of restricted shares for the three months ended December 31, 2018:

Item 6. Selected Financial Data

The selected financial data presented below has been derived from our financial statements. This data may not be indicative of our future financial condition or results of operations and should be read in conjunction with “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and our financial statements and accompanying notes included elsewhere herein.

67

Item 7. Management Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

The following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and related notes appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. In addition to historical financial information, the following discussion contains forward-looking statements that reflect our plans, estimates and beliefs. Our actual results could differ materially from those contained in or implied by any forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause or contribute to these differences include those under “Risk Factors” included in Part I, Item 1A and under “Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” or in other parts of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Business Overview

We are a biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering, acquiring, developing and commercializing next generation immunotherapy platforms that leverage cell- and gene-based therapies to treat patients with cancer. We are developing two immuno-oncology platform technologies designed to utilize the patient’s immune system by employing novel, controlled gene expression and innovative cell engineering technologies to deliver safe, effective, and scalable cell- and viral-based therapies for the treatment of multiple cancer types. Our first platform is referred to as Sleeping Beauty and is based on the genetic engineering of immune cells using a non-viral transposon/transposase system to stably reprogram T cells outside of the body for subsequent infusion. Our second platform is termed Controlled IL-12, which is designed to stimulate expression of interleukin 12, or IL-12, a master regulator of the immune system, in a controlled and safe manner to focus the patient’s immune system to attack cancer cells. We believe these two platforms will provide unique and powerful solutions to address the issues associated with (1) treating solid tumors with heterogeneous and unknown antigens, and (2) providing cost-effective scalable manufacturing solutions for T-cell receptor T-cell, or TCR⁺ T, and chimeric antigen receptor, or CAR T-cell, or CAR⁺ T therapies for solid tumors and hematologic malignancies. We expect programs from our two platform technologies to be in the clinic in 2019.

Immuno-oncology, which typically utilizes a patient’s own immune system to treat cancer, is one of the most actively pursued areas of research by biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies today. Cancer cells often contain new mutated proteins and may overexpress other proteins usually found in the body. The immune system typically recognizes unusual or aberrant cell protein expression and eliminates these cells in an efficient process known as immune surveillance. Central to immune surveillance are types of white blood cells known as T cells. In healthy individuals, T cells can identify and kill infected or abnormal cells, including cancer cells. Malignant cells develop the ability to evade immune surveillance, which is a key factor in their growth, spread, and persistence.

Our approach to immuno-oncology entails the application of engineering principles to biological systems for designing and constructing new biological systems or redesigning and modifying existing biological systems. This approach aims to engineer gene-based programs to modify cellular function to achieve a desired biological outcome, such as the survival of infused T cells, production of IL-12, or the safe elimination of cancerous cells.

68

Using our Sleeping Beauty platform, we are developing our TCR⁺ T therapies, initially to target solid tumors. Our T cell receptor, or TCR, program designs and manufactures T cells that target antigens unique to each patient, thereby delivering truly personalized therapy that can attack an individual patient’s cancer. Our Sleeping Beauty system uses DNA plasmids to reprogram T cells to express introduced TCRs on a patient-by-patient basis (addressing inter-tumor heterogeneity) and to express more than one TCR for each patient (addressing intra-tumor heterogeneity). We believe the scalability of our approach provides a competitive advantage to alternative viral-based approaches to T-cell manufacturing. Under our Cooperative Research and Development Agreement, or CRADA, the National Cancer Institute, or the NCI, intends to initiate a Phase 1 clinical trial in patients with a variety of solid tumors using the Sleeping Beauty platform to genetically modify T-cells to target patient-specific neoantigens in mid-2019. The clinical trial will be under the direction of Steven A. Rosenberg, M.D., Ph.D., Chief of the Surgery Branch at the NCI.

We are also developing CAR⁺ T therapies using our Sleeping Beauty platform. Our CAR⁺ T program seeks to solve the complex and costly manufacturing limitations of existing CAR⁺ T therapies that we believe will continue limiting their commercial potential. We believe using DNA plasmids in the Sleeping Beauty system to express CAR and our proprietary membrane-bound interleukin 15, or mbIL15, in resting T cells obtained from peripheral blood will enable infused T cells to propagate within the patient to target leukemia and lymphoma, thus avoiding the need to numerically expand T cells for weeks in bioreactors before patient administration. We expect the lower cost of DNA plasmids compared with the virus used by other CAR⁺ T programs, together with the avoidance of lengthy ex vivo manufacturing, will reduce the cost and complexity of manufacturing CAR⁺ T cells. These technologies should enable T cells to be infused within two days of gene transfer in a process we refer to as rapid personalized manufacture, or RPM. We are advancing our CAR⁺ T therapies in the United States in collaboration with The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, or MD Anderson, to target CD19 on malignant B cells. In 2019, we expect to initiate a Phase 1 clinical trial in the United States of our third-generation Sleeping Beauty modified CAR⁺ T cells, co-expressing CAR and mbIL15, manufactured and reinfused into the patient in less than two days from gene transfer. In addition, in a joint venture with TriArm Therapeutics, Ltd., or TriArm, we are forming Eden BioCell, Ltd., or Eden BioCell, to lead clinical development and commercialization of Sleeping Beauty-generated CD19-specific CAR-T therapies in the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan and Korea. Eden BioCell is owned equally by us and TriArm and the parties will share decision-making authority, and TriArm has committed up to $35.0 million to this joint venture and will manage all clinical development to execute trials in the territory. We expect our joint venture with TriArm to close in the first half of 2019 and we may evaluate additional programs to pursue in this joint venture.

Our Controlled IL-12 platform uses virotherapy based on an engineered replication-incompetent adenovirus (Ad-RTS-hIL-12) plus veledimex as a gene delivery system to conditionally produce IL-12, a potent, naturally occurring anti-cancer protein, to treat patients with solid tumors where a specific target is unknown, including brain cancer. Our Controlled IL-12 platform allows us to deliver IL-12 in a tunable dose, which we believe is critical for this potent cytokine. In a Phase 1 clinical trial of patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme, or rGBM, a subset of patients (n=6) who received low-dose steroids along with 20 mg of veledimex plus Ad-RTS-hIL-12, achieved 17.8 months median OS compared with five to eight months OS established in historical controls. Thirty-six additional patients with rGBM have been recruited into a sub study designed to encourage use of low-dose steroids and 20 mg veledimex to further understand the potential of Controlled IL-12 as a monotherapy. We are also developing our Controlled IL-12 platform in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors. In June 2018, we began enrolling patients with rGBM to receive Ad-RTS-hIL-12 plus veledimex in combination with OPDIVO^® (nivolumab) in a Phase 1 dose-escalation trial. In November 2018, we announced a clinical supply agreement with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Regeneron, to evaluate Ad-RTS-hIL-12 plus veledimex in combination with Regeneron’s PD-1 antibody Libtayo^® (cemiplimab-rwlc) for the treatment of patients with rGBM. We expect to initiate a Phase 2 clinical trial in the first half of 2019 in approximately 30 patients with rGBM to measure preliminary safety and efficacy of Ad-RTS-hIL-12 plus veledimex in combination with Libtayo.

69

As of December 31, 2018, we have approximately $61.7 million of cash and cash equivalents. Given our current development plans, we anticipate cash resources will be sufficient to fund our operations into the second quarter of 2020, and we have no committed sources of additional capital at this time. The forecast of cash resources is forward-looking information that involves risks and uncertainties, and the actual amount of our expenses could vary materially and adversely as a result of a number of factors. We have based our estimates on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and our expenses could prove to be significantly higher than we currently anticipate. Management does not know whether additional financing will be on terms favorable or acceptable to us when needed, if at all. If adequate additional funds are not available when required, or if we are unsuccessful in entering into partnership agreements for further development of our product candidates, management may need to curtail its development efforts and planned operations.

We have not generated significant revenue and have incurred significant net losses in each year since our inception. For the year ended December 31, 2018, we had a net loss of $53.1 million, and, as of December 31, 2018, we have incurred approximately $566.3 million of accumulated deficit since our inception in 2003. We expect to continue to incur significant operating expenditures and net losses. Further development of our product candidates will likely require substantial increases in our expenses as we:

We continue to seek additional financial resources to fund the further development of our product candidates. If we are unable to obtain sufficient additional capital, one or more of these programs could be delayed, and we may be unable to continue our operations at planned levels and be forced to reduce our operations. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with product development, we are unable to predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when or if we will be able to achieve or maintain profitability.

Financial Overview

Overview of Results of Operations

Collaboration Revenue

We recognize research and development funding revenue over the estimated period of performance. We have not generated product revenues since our inception. Unless and until we receive approval from the FDA and/or other regulatory authorities for our product candidates, we cannot sell our products and will not have product revenues.

Research and Development Expenses

Our research and development expense consists primarily of salaries and related expenses for personnel, costs of contract manufacturing services, costs of facilities and equipment, fees paid to professional service providers in conjunction with our clinical trials, fees paid to contract research organizations in conjunction with preclinical animal studies, costs of materials used in research and development, consulting, license and milestone payments and sponsored research fees paid to third parties.

We have not accumulated and tracked our internal historical research and development costs or our personnel and personnel-related costs on a program-by-program basis. Our employee and infrastructure resources are allocated across several projects, and many of our costs are directed to broadly applicable research endeavors. As a result, we cannot state the costs incurred for each of our oncology programs on a program-by-program basis.

70

For the year ended December 31, 2018, our clinical stage projects included a Phase 1 clinical trial with Ad-RTS-IL-12 plus veledimex in progressive glioblastoma; a Phase 1b/2 trial with Ad-RTS-IL-12 plus veledimex in metastatic breast cancer; an investigator-led Phase 1 clinical trial infusing our 2nd generation CD19-specific CAR⁺ T cells in patients with advanced lymphoid malignancies; an investigator-led Phase 1 clinical trial infusing our CD33-specific CAR⁺ T therapy for relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia; and a Phase 1 clinical trial of Ad-RTS-hIL-12 with veledimex for the treatment of pediatric brain tumors. The expenses incurred by us to third parties for our Phase 1 clinical trial with Ad-RTS-IL-12 plus veledimex in progressive glioblastoma were $2.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2018, and $6.8 million from the project’s inception in June 2015 through December 31, 2018. The expenses incurred by us to third parties for our Phase 1b/2 clinical trial with Ad-RTS-IL-12 plus veledimex in metastatic breast cancer for the year ended December 31, 2018 were $0.2 million, and expenses from the project’s inception in April 2015 through December 31, 2018 were $1.0 million. The expenses incurred by us to third parties for our investigator-led Phase 1 clinical trial infusing our 2nd generation CD19-specific CAR⁺ T cells in patients with advanced lymphoid malignancies were $1.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2018 and $4.7 million from the project’s inception in December 2015 through December 31, 2018. The expenses incurred by us to third parties for our investigator-led Phase 1 clinical trial infusing our CD33-specific CAR⁺ T therapy for relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia for the year ended December 31, 2018 were $2.3 million and $3.7 million from the project’s inception in September 2017 through December 31, 2018. The expenses incurred by us to third parties for our investigator-led Phase 1 clinical trial of Ad-RTS-hIL-12 with veledimex for the treatment of pediatric brain tumors were $0.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2018 and the $1.5 million from the project’s inception in October 2017 through December 31, 2018.

Our future research and development expenses in support of our current and future programs will be subject to numerous uncertainties in timing and cost to completion. We test potential products in numerous preclinical studies for safety, toxicology and efficacy. We may conduct multiple clinical trials for each product. As we obtain results from trials, we may elect to discontinue or delay clinical trials for certain products in order to focus our resources on more promising products or indications. Completion of clinical trials may take several years or more, and the length of time generally varies substantially according to the type, complexity, novelty and intended use of a product. It is not unusual for preclinical and clinical development of each of these types of products to require the expenditure of substantial resources.

We estimate that clinical trials of the type generally needed to secure new drug approval are typically completed over the following timelines:

The duration and the cost of clinical trials may vary significantly over the life of a project as a result of differences arising during clinical development, including, among others, the following:

As a result of the uncertainties discussed above, we are unable to determine the duration and completion costs of our programs or when and to what extent we will receive cash inflows from the commercialization and sale of a

71

product. Our inability to complete our programs in a timely manner or our failure to enter into appropriate collaborative agreements could significantly increase our capital requirements and could adversely impact our liquidity. These uncertainties could force us to seek additional, external sources of financing from time-to-time in order to continue with our product development strategy. Our inability to raise additional capital, or to do so on terms reasonably acceptable to us, would jeopardize the future success of our business.

General and Administrative Expenses

General and administrative expenses consist primarily of salaries, benefits and stock-based compensation, consulting and professional fees, including patent related costs, general corporate costs and facility costs not otherwise included in research and development expenses or cost of product revenue.

Other Income (Expense)

Other income (expense) consists primarily of changes in the fair value of our Series 1 preferred stock. All of the Series 1 preferred stock was forfeited on October 5, 2018 in conjunction with entering the License Agreement with Precigen.

Results of Operations for the Fiscal Year ended December 31, 2018 versus December 31, 2017

Collaboration Revenues

Revenues for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017 were as follows:

Revenue for the year ended December 31, 2018 decreased by $6.2 million in comparison to revenue for the year ended December 31, 2017 due to the adoption of ASC 606 (Note 3). During the year ended December 31, 2018, we recognized $146 thousand of revenue related to the Ares Trading Agreement under ASC 606. During the year ended December 31, 2017, we recognized $6.4 million through our Ares Trading Agreement under ASC 605. (Note 3).

Research and Development Expenses

Research and development expenses during the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017 were as follows:

Research and development expenses for the year ended December 31, 2018 decreased by $11.0 million when compared to the year ended December 31, 2017. The decrease in expense during the year ended December 31, 2018 was due to a decrease of $10.4 million in preclinical activities, a decrease of $1.7 million related to graft versus host disease, or GvHD, expenses, and a reduction of $0.6 million in other clinical expenses. The decrease in preclinical, GvHD, and other clinical expenses was offset by increases in Gorilla IL-12 expenses due to Precigen under the License Agreement of $1.0 million (Note 7) and of $0.7 million related to salary and employee related expense during the year ended December 31, 2018. We previously determined that the pursuit of GvHD as an indication was not a material part of its corporate strategy and decided to stop pursuing the development of engineered cell therapy strategies, used either separately or in combination, for targeted treatment of GvHD (Note 8).

72

General and Administrative Expenses

General and administrative expenses during the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017 were as follows:

General and administrative expenses for the year ended December 31, 2018 increased by $5.1 million as compared to the prior year. The change was primarily due to increased contracted outside services and advisory fees related to our License Agreement with Precigen (Note 7) of $4.1 million and an increase of $1.3 million related to salary and employee related expense during the year ended December 31, 2018. The increased costs in 2018 were offset by a reduction of milestone payments of $0.3 million due to Baxter Healthcare S.A., or Baxter, as our license agreement with Baxter expired in November 2017 (Note 8).

Other Income (Expense)

Other income (expense) during the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017 were as follows:

During the year ended December 31, 2018 we recorded a gain on the change in fair value of the derivative liabilities of $158 thousand, compared to a loss of $1.3 million during the year ended December 31, 2017 (Note 12). These changes are derived from the number of previously outstanding shares of Series 1 preferred stock and their respective valuations. Additionally, we recorded $631 thousand in other income for the year ended December 31, 2018, compared to $465 thousand earned in the prior year, due to increases in our cash equivalent accounts (Note 3).

Results of Operations for the Fiscal Year ended December 31, 2017 versus December 31, 2016

Collaboration Revenues

Revenues for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016 were as follows:

Revenue for the year ended December 31, 2017 decreased by $472 thousand in comparison to revenue for the year ended December 31, 2016. During each of the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, we recognized revenue of $6.4 million under the Ares Trading Agreement. During the year ended December 31, 2016, we recognized $272 thousand from our agreement with Solasia and $200 thousand from our agreement with Predictive Therapeutics. We recognized no revenue from our agreements with Solasia and Predictive Therapeutics during the year ended December 31, 2017.

73

Research and Development Expenses

Research and development expenses during the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016 were as follows:

Research and development expenses for the year ended December 31, 2017 decreased by $112.7 million when compared to the year ended December 31, 2016. During the year ended December 31, 2016, we incurred a noncash charge of $119.0 million related to Series 1 preferred stock and related dividends issued to Intrexon. Excluding the noncash charge of $119.0 in 2016, research and development expenses would have been higher by $6.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2017 compared to the year ended December 31, 2016. The increase in expenses during the year ended December 31, 2017 was due to an increase of $2.8 million for salary and employee related expense due to increased headcount, $1.6 million in cell therapy expenses to support our ongoing trials at MD Anderson, $1.2 million to support our ongoing gene therapy programs, and $0.7 million in other operating expense.

General and Administrative Expenses

General and administrative expenses during the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016 were as follows:

General and administrative expenses for the year ended December 31, 2017 increased by $421 thousand as compared to the prior year. The change was primarily due to increased salary and employee related expenses as a result of headcount additions during the year ended December 31, 2017.

Other Income (Expense)

Other income (expense) during the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016 were as follows:

During the year ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, we recorded a loss on the change in fair value of the derivative liabilities of $1.3 million and $124 thousand, respectively (Note 10). These changes are derived from the number of outstanding shares of Series 1 preferred stock and their respective valuations. Additionally, we recorded $465 thousand in other income for the year ended December 31, 2017, compared to $134 thousand earned in the prior year, due to increases in our cash equivalent accounts (Note 3).

Liquidity and Capital Resources

As of December 31, 2018, we have approximately $61.7 million of cash and cash equivalents. Given our development plans, we anticipate our cash resources will be sufficient to fund our operations into the second

74

quarter of 2020. We currently have no committed sources of additional capital. The forecast of cash resources is forward-looking information that involves risks and uncertainties, and the actual amount of our expenses could vary materially and adversely as a result of a number of factors. We have based our estimates on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and our expenses could prove to be significantly higher than we currently anticipate. Management does not know whether additional financing will be on terms favorable or acceptable to us when needed, if at all. If adequate additional funds are not available when required, or if we are unsuccessful in entering into partnership agreements for further development of our products, management may need to curtail development efforts.

In addition to these factors, our actual cash requirements may vary materially from our current expectations for a number of other factors that may include, but are not limited to, changes in the focus and direction of our development programs, competitive and technical advances, costs associated with the development of our product candidates, our ability to secure partnering arrangements, and the costs of filing, prosecuting, defending and enforcing our intellectual property rights. If we exhaust our capital reserves more quickly than anticipated, regardless of the reason, and we are unable to obtain additional financing on terms acceptable to us or at all, we will be unable to proceed with development of some or all of our product candidates on expected timelines and will be forced to prioritize among them.

We expect that we will need additional financing to support our long-term plans for clinical trials and new product development. We expect to finance our cash needs through the sale of equity securities, strategic collaborations and/or debt financings, or through other sources that may be dilutive to existing stockholders. There can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain funding from any of these sources or, if obtained, what the terms of such funding(s) may be, or that any amount that we are able to obtain will be adequate to support our working capital requirements until we achieve profitable operations. We have no current committed sources of additional capital. Recently, capital markets have experienced a period of instability that may severely hinder our ability to raise capital within the time periods needed or on terms we consider acceptable, if at all. If we are unable to raise additional funds when needed, we may not be able to continue development and regulatory approval of our products, or we could be required to delay, scale back or eliminate some or all our research and development programs.

Recent Financing Transactions

November 2018 Private Placement

On November 11, 2018, we entered into a securities purchase agreement with certain institutional and accredited investors pursuant to which we agreed to issue and sell to the investors an aggregate of 18,939,394 immediately separable units at a price per unit of $2.64, for net proceeds of approximately $47.1 million. Each unit was comprised of (i) one share of our common stock, par value $0.001 per share and (ii) a warrant to purchase one share of common stock. The securities issued by us pursuant to the securities purchase agreement and to be issued upon exercise of the warrants were not registered under the Securities Act and may not be offered or sold in the United States absent registration or an applicable exemption from registration requirements. When issuing the units, we relied on the private placement exemption from registration provided by Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act and by Rule 506 of Registration D, promulgated thereunder and on similar exemptions under applicable state laws and filed a Form D with the SEC on November 19, 2018. On February 7, 2019, we filed a registration statement on Form S-3 registering the resale of shares issued pursuant to the securities purchase agreement and the resale of shares that may be issued upon exercise of the warrants.

May 2017 Public Offering

On May 11, 2017, we sold in an underwritten public offering an aggregate of 9,708,738 shares of our common stock to a single institutional investor in an underwritten offering. The price to the investor in the offering was $5.15 per share, and the underwriters agreed to purchase the shares from us pursuant to the underwriting agreement at a purchase price of $4.893 per share. The offering was made pursuant to a registration statement on

75

Form S-3ASR previously filed with the SEC, and a prospectus supplement thereunder. The net proceeds from the offering were approximately $47.3 million after deducting underwriting commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us.

Cash Increases and (Decreases)

The following table summarizes our net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016:

Cash flows from operating activities represent the cash receipts and disbursements related to all of our activities other than investing and financing activities. Operating cash flow is derived by adjusting our net loss for:

Net cash used in operating activities for the year ended December 31, 2018 was $49.5 million, as compared to net cash used in operating activities of $54.7 million and $58.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively. The net cash used in operating activities for the year ended December 31, 2018 was primarily a result of our net loss of $53.1 million, offset by an increase in prepaid expenses and receivables of $3.1 million, a decrease in other noncurrent assets of $3.9 million, and a decrease in accounts payable and accrued expenses of $4.8 million. The net cash used in operating activities for the year ended December 31, 2017 was primarily a result of our net loss of $54.3 million, a decrease in prepaid expenses of $4.0 million, an increase in other noncurrent assets of $13.0 million and an increase in accounts payable and accrued expenses of $5.1 million. The net cash used in operating activities for the twelve months ended December 31, 2016 was primarily a result of our net loss of $165.3 million, an increase of $12.5 million in charges related to prepayments for cell therapy programs under our license agreements, a decrease in deferred revenue of $6.9 million, a decrease in accounts payable and accrued expenses of $1.6 million and an increase in stock compensation of $0.4 million.

Net cash used in investing activities was $459 thousand for the year ended December 31, 2018 compared to $737 thousand and $551 thousand for the years ended December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. The change was due primarily to increases in equipment purchases under our agreement with MD Anderson to support our ongoing clinical trials in Houston, Texas during the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016.

Net cash provided by financing activities was $40.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2018 compared to net cash provided by financing activities of $45.3 million and $788 thousand cash used in financing activities for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively. The $40.3 million provided by financing activities during the year ended December 31, 2018 is a result of net proceeds of $47.1 million from our November 2018 financing (Note 2) which were offset by cash paid of $5.4 million from our License Agreement (Note 8) and

76

$1.6 million paid for the repurchase of common stock. The $45.3 million provided by financing activities during the year ended December 31, 2017 is a result of net proceeds of $47.3 million from our May 2017 offering (Note 2) which was offset by $2.1 million in cash used in the issuance of restricted common stock.

Operating Capital and Capital Expenditure Requirements

We anticipate that losses will continue for the foreseeable future. At December 31, 2018, our accumulated deficit was approximately $566.3 million. Our actual cash requirements may vary materially from those planned because of a number of factors including:

Working capital as of December 31, 2018 was $74.8 million, consisting of $84.3 million in current assets and $9.5 million in current liabilities. Working capital as of December 31, 2017 was $69.9 million, consisting of $90.8 million in current assets and $20.9 million in current liabilities.

Contractual Obligations

The following table summarizes our outstanding obligations as of December 31, 2018 and the effect those obligations are expected to have on our liquidity and cash flows in future periods:

Our commitments for operating leases relate to the lease for our corporate headquarters in Boston, Massachusetts, and office space in Houston, Texas. On December 21, 2015 and April 15, 2016, we renewed the sublease for our corporate headquarters in Boston, MA through August 31, 2021. On January 30, 2018, we entered into a lease agreement for office space in Houston, TX at MD Anderson through April 15, 2021.

On January 10, 2017, we announced the signing of a CRADA with the NCI for the development of ACT-based immunotherapies genetically modified using the Sleeping Beauty transposon/transposase system for the treatment of solid tumors. Our obligation for the CRADA is reflected above with $2.5 million in the column “Less than 1 Year”.

On October 5, 2018, we entered into the License Agreement with Precigen. Under the License Agreement, we are obligated to pay Precigen annual licensing fees of $100 thousand expected to be paid through the term of the agreement.

Critical Accounting Policies and Significant Estimates

Our Management’s Discussion and Analysis of our financial condition and results of operations is based upon our financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted

77

in the United States. The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements as well as the reported expenses during the reporting periods. We evaluate our estimates and judgments on an ongoing basis. Actual results may differ materially from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

We believe the following are our more significant estimates and judgments used in the preparation of our financial statements:

Clinical Trial Expenses

Clinical trial expenses include expenses associated with clinical research organizations, or CROs. The invoicing from CROs for services rendered can lag several months. We accrue the cost of services rendered in connection with CRO activities based on our estimate of site management, monitoring costs, and project management costs. We maintain regular communication with our CROs to gauge the reasonableness of our estimates. Differences between actual clinical trial expenses and estimated clinical trial expenses recorded have not been material and are adjusted for in the period in which they become known.

Revenue Recognition from Collaboration Agreements

The Company primarily generates revenue through collaboration arrangements with strategic partners for the development and commercialization of product candidates. Commencing January 1, 2018, the Company recognized revenue in accordance with ASC 606 which replaced ASC 605, Multiple Element Arrangements, as used in historical years. The core principle of ASC 606 is that an entity should recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods and/or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods and/or services. To determine the appropriate amount of revenue to be recognized for arrangements that the Company determines are within the scope of ASC 606, the Company performs the following steps: (i) identify the contract(s) with the customer, (ii) identify the performance obligations in the contract, (iii) determine the transaction price, (iv) allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations in the contract and (v) recognize revenue when (or as) each performance obligation is satisfied.

The Company recognizes collaboration revenue under certain of the Company’s license or collaboration agreements that are within the scope of ASC 606. The Company’s contracts with customers typically include promises related to licenses to intellectual property, research and development services and options to purchase additional goods and/or services. If the license to the Company’s intellectual property is determined to be distinct from the other performance obligations identified in the arrangement, the Company recognizes revenue from non-refundable, up-front fees allocated to the license when the license is transferred to the licensee and the licensee is able to use and benefit from the license. For licenses that are bundled with other promises, the Company utilizes judgment to assess the nature of the combined performance obligation to determine whether the combined performance obligation is satisfied over time or at a point in time and, if over time, the appropriate method of measuring progress for purposes of recognizing revenue from non-refundable, up-front fees. Contracts that include an option to acquire additional goods and/or services are evaluated to determine if such option provides a material right to the customer that it would not have received without entering into the contract. If so, the option is accounted for as a separate performance obligation. If not, the option is considered a marketing offer which would be accounted for as a separate contract upon the customer’s election.

78

The terms of the Company’s arrangements with customers typically include the payment of one or more of the following: (i) non-refundable, up-front payment, (ii) development, regulatory and commercial milestone payments, (iii) future options and (iv) royalties on net sales of licensed products. Accordingly, the transaction price is generally comprised of a fixed fee due at contract inception and variable consideration in the form of milestone payments due upon the achievement of specified events and tiered royalties earned when customers recognize net sales of licensed products. The Company measures the transaction price based on the amount of consideration to which it expects to be entitled in exchange for transferring the promised goods and/or services to the customer. The Company utilizes the most likely amount method to estimate the amount of variable consideration, to predict the amount of consideration to which it will be entitled for its one open contract. Amounts of variable consideration are included in the transaction price to the extent that it is probable that a significant reversal in the amount of cumulative revenue recognized will not occur when the uncertainty associated with the variable consideration is subsequently resolved. At the inception of each arrangement that includes development and regulatory milestone payments, the Company evaluates whether the associated event is considered probable of achievement and estimates the amount to be included in the transaction price using the most likely amount method. Milestone payments that are not within the control of the Company or the licensee, such as those dependent upon receipt of regulatory approval, are not considered to be probable of achievement until the triggering event occurs. At the end of each reporting period, the Company reevaluates the probability of achievement of each milestone and any related constraint, and if necessary, adjusts its estimate of the overall transaction price. Any such adjustments are recorded on a cumulative catch-up basis, which would affect revenue and net loss in the period of adjustment. For arrangements that include sales-based royalties, including milestone payments based upon the achievement of a certain level of product sales, the Company recognizes revenue upon the later of: (i) when the related sales occur or (ii) when the performance obligation to which some or all of the payment has been allocated has been satisfied (or partially satisfied). To date, the Company has not recognized any development, regulatory or commercial milestones or royalty revenue resulting from any of its collaboration arrangements. Consideration that would be received for optional goods and/or services is excluded from the transaction price at contract inception.

The Company allocates the transaction price to each performance obligation identified in the contract on a relative standalone selling price basis. However, certain components of variable consideration are allocated specifically to one or more particular performance obligations in a contact to the extent both of the following criteria are met: (i) the terms of the payment relate specifically to the efforts to satisfy the performance obligation or transfer the distinct good or service and (ii) allocating the variable amount of consideration entirely to the performance obligation or the distinct good or service is consistent with the allocation objective of the standard whereby the amount allocated depicts the amount of consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for transferring the promised goods or services. The Company develops assumptions that require judgment to determine the standalone selling price for each performance obligation identified in each contract. The key assumptions utilized in determining the standalone selling price for each performance obligation may include forecasted revenues, development timelines, estimated research and development costs, discount rates, likelihood of exercise and probabilities of technical and regulatory success.

Revenue is recognized based on the amount of the transaction price that is allocated to each respective performance obligation when or as the performance obligation is satisfied by transferring a promised good and/or service to the customer. For performance obligations that are satisfied over time, the Company recognizes revenue by measuring the progress toward complete satisfaction of the performance obligation using a single method of measuring progress which depicts the performance in transferring control of the associated goods and/or services to the customer. The Company uses input methods to measure the progress toward the complete satisfaction of performance obligations satisfied over time. The Company evaluates the measure of progress each reporting period and, if necessary, adjusts the measure of performance and related revenue recognition. Any such adjustments are recorded on a cumulative catch-up basis, which would affect revenue and net loss in the period of adjustment.

79

Fair Value Measurements of Stock Based Compensation and Series 1 Preferred Stock (including related dividends)

Accounting standards define fair value, establish a framework for measuring fair value under generally accepted accounting principles and enhance disclosures about fair value measurements. Fair value is defined as the exchange price that would be received for an asset or paid to transfer a liability (an exit price) in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date. Valuation techniques used to measure fair value must maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs. The standard describes a fair value hierarchy based on three levels of inputs, of which the first two are considered observable and the last unobservable, that may be used to measure fair value which are the following:

We make certain assumptions to value and expense our share-based compensation awards, as well as our Series 1 preferred stock (including related dividends), which as of October 2018 is no longer outstanding. In connection with valuing stock options we use the Black-Scholes, which require us to estimate certain subjective assumptions. The key assumptions we make are: the expected volatility of our stock; the expected term of the award; and the forfeiture rate related to share based awards. In connection with our restricted stock programs, we make assumptions principally related to the forfeiture rate.

We review our valuation assumptions periodically and, as a result, we may change our valuation assumptions used to value share-based awards granted in future periods. Such changes may lead to a significant change in the expense we recognize in connection with share-based payments.

Income Taxes

In preparing our financial statements, we estimate our income tax liability in each of the jurisdictions in which we operate by estimating our actual current tax expense together with assessing temporary differences resulting from differing treatment of items for tax and financial reporting purposes. These differences result in deferred tax assets and liabilities, which, prior to the consideration for the need for a valuation allowance, are included on the balance sheet. Significant management judgment is required in assessing the realizability of our deferred tax assets. In performing this assessment, we consider whether it is more likely than not that some portion or all of the deferred tax assets will not be realized. The ultimate realization of deferred tax assets is dependent upon the generation of future taxable income during the periods in which those temporary differences become deductible. In making this determination, under the applicable financial accounting standards, we are allowed to consider the scheduled reversal of deferred tax liabilities, projected future taxable income, and the effects of tax planning strategies. Our estimates of future taxable income include, among other items, our estimates of future income tax deductions related to the exercise of stock options. In the event that actual results differ from our estimates, we adjust our estimates in future periods and we may need to establish a valuation allowance, which could materially impact our financial position and results of operations.

We account for uncertain tax positions using a “more-likely-than-not” threshold for recognizing and resolving uncertain tax positions. The evaluation of uncertain tax positions is based on factors that include, but are not limited to, changes in tax law, the measurement of tax positions taken or expected to be taken in tax returns, the effective settlement of matters subject to audit, new audit activity and changes in facts or circumstances related to

80

a tax position. We evaluate uncertain tax positions on an annual basis and adjust the level of the liability to reflect any subsequent changes in the relevant facts surrounding the uncertain positions. Our liabilities for uncertain tax positions can be relieved only if the contingency becomes legally extinguished through either payment to the taxing authority or the expiration of the statute of limitations, the recognition of the benefits associated with the position meet the “more-likely-than-not” threshold or the liability becomes effectively settled through the examination process. We consider matters to be effectively settled once the taxing authority has completed all of its required or expected examination procedures, including all appeals and administrative reviews; we have no plans to appeal or litigate any aspect of the tax position; and we believe that it is highly unlikely that the taxing authority would examine or re-examine the related tax position. We also accrue for potential interest and penalties, related to unrecognized tax benefits in income tax expense.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

For a discussion of new accounting standards, please read Note 3 to the accompanying financial statements, Summary of Significant Accounting Principles included in this report.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

We have not entered into, nor do we currently have any special purpose entities or off-balance sheet financing arrangements as defined under SEC rules.

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Mark Risk

Not applicable to smaller reporting companies.

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

The information required by this Item 8 is contained on pages F-1 through F-40 of this Annual Report and is incorporated herein by reference.

Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosures

None.

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures.

Under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting Officer, we have evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures, as such term is defined under Rule 13a-15(e) or 15d-15(e) promulgated under the Exchange Act, as of December 31, 2018. Based on that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting Officer have concluded that as of such date, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective.

Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting for us. Internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) of the Exchange Act) is a process to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of our financial reporting for external purposes in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. Internal control over financial reporting includes maintaining records that in reasonable detail accurately and fairly reflect our transactions; providing reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary for preparation of our financial statements; providing reasonable assurance that receipts and expenditures of company assets are made in accordance with management authorization; and providing reasonable assurance that unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of company assets that could have a material effect on our financial statements would be prevented or detected on a timely basis. Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting is not intended to provide absolute assurance that a misstatement of our financial statements would be prevented or detected.

81

Management conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness, as of December 31, 2018, of our internal control over financial reporting based on the framework in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission in 2013. Based on this evaluation, management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2018.

RSM US LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2018. That report is included in this Annual Report.

Changes in Internal Controls over Financial Reporting

There were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting during the year ended December 31, 2018 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

Item 9B. Other Information

None.

82

PART III

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance

Information in response to this Item is incorporated herein by reference to the information from our definitive proxy statement to be filed pursuant to Regulation 14A within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Annual Report under the sections titled Proposals—Election of Directors, Current Directors, Director Nominees and Executive Officers, Information Regarding the Board of Directors and Corporate Governance and Stock Ownership.

Item 11. Executive Compensation

Information in response to this Item is incorporated herein by reference to the information from our definitive proxy statement to be filed pursuant to Regulation 14A within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Annual Report under the section entitled Executive Compensation.

Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters

Securities Authorized for Issuance under Equity Compensation Plans

Our Amended and Restated 2003 Stock Option Plan, or the 2003 Plan, and our 2012 Stock Option Plan, or the 2012 Plan, are our only equity compensation plans approved by our stockholders. The following table sets forth certain information as of December 31, 2018 with respect to the 2003 and 2012 Plans:

Additional information in response to this Item is incorporated herein by reference to the information from our definitive proxy statement to be filed pursuant to Regulation 14A within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Annual Report under the section titled Stock Ownership.

Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence

Information in response to this Item is incorporated herein by reference to the information from our definitive proxy statement to be filed pursuant to Regulation 14A within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Annual Report under the section titled Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Information Regarding the Board of Directors and Corporate Governance.

Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services

Information in response to this Item is incorporated herein by reference to the information from our definitive proxy statement to be filed pursuant to Regulation 14A within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Annual Report under the section titled Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm Fees and Other Matters.

83

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules

(1) Financial Statements:

The Financial Statements required to be filed by Item 8 of this Annual Report, and filed in this Item 15, are as follows:

(2) Financial Statement Schedules:

Schedules are omitted because they are not applicable, or are not required, or because the information is included in the financial statements and notes thereto.

(3) Exhibits:

84

85

86

+ Confidential treatment has been granted as to certain portions of this exhibit pursuant to Rule 406 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or Rule 24b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

Item 16. Form 10-K Summary

Not applicable.

87

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.