UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

______________________________________

FORM 10-K

______________________________________

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025

OR

FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM TO

Commission File Number: 001-37985

______________________________________

ANAPTYSBIO, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

______________________________________

10770 Wateridge Circle, Suite 210

San Diego, CA 92121

(Address of principal executive offices and zip code)

(858) 362-6295

(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 Section 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 preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ☒ No ☐

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

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☐

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

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

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

The aggregate market value of voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant was $432,512,876 as of June 30, 2025.

The number of shares of registrant’s common stock outstanding was 28,748,255 as of February 27, 2026.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K (“Annual Report”) contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”). The words “believe,” “may,” “will,” “potentially,” “estimate,” “continue,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “could,” “would,” “project,” “plan,” and “expect,” and similar expressions that convey uncertainty of future events or outcomes, are intended to identify forward-looking statements.

The forward-looking statements in this report include, among other things, statements about:

These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties, and assumptions, including those described in Item 1A, “Risk Factors,” and elsewhere in this Annual Report. Moreover, we operate in a competitive and rapidly changing environment, and new risks emerge from time to time. It is not possible for our management to predict all risks, nor can we assess the impact of all factors on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements we may make. In light of these risks, uncertainties, and assumptions, the forward-looking events and circumstances discussed in this Annual Report may not occur, and actual results could differ materially and adversely from those anticipated or implied in the forward-looking statements.

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

You should read this Annual Report with the understanding that our actual future results, levels of activity, performance, and events and circumstances may be materially different from what we expect.

Unless the context indicates otherwise, as used in this Annual Report, the terms “AnaptysBio,” “Anaptys,” “company,” “we,” “us” and “our” refer to AnaptysBio, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and its subsidiaries taken as a whole, unless otherwise noted. AnaptysBio is our common law trademark. This Annual Report contains additional trade names, trademarks, and service marks of other companies, which are the property of their respective owners. We do not intend our use or display of other companies’ trade names, trademarks, or service marks to imply a relationship with, or endorsement or sponsorship of us by, these other companies.

PART I

Item 1. Business

Overview

We are a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on delivering innovative immunology therapeutics for autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. Our clinical-stage pipeline includes rosnilimab, a selective pathogenic T cell depleter, for which we completed a Phase 2b trial for the treatment of moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (“RA”), ANB033, a CD122 antagonist, in a Phase 1b trial for celiac disease (“CeD”) and eosinophilic esophagitis (“EoE”), and ANB101, a BDCA2 modulator, in a Phase 1a trial. We also discovered and out-licensed, in financial collaborations, multiple therapeutic antibodies, including a PD-1 antagonist (Jemperli (dostarlimab-gxly) or “Jemperli”) to GSK and an IL-36R antagonist (imsidolimab) to Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Vanda”). We currently recognize revenue from milestones and royalties achieved under our immuno-oncology collaboration with GSK and license and transition services revenue from our collaboration with Vanda.

Intention to Separate Company

In September 2025, we announced that our board of directors (“Board of Directors”) approved plans to explore separating our business into two independent, publicly traded companies. One company is expected to hold and continue to manage the financial collaboration for Jemperli from GSK and for imsidolimab from Vanda, with a focus on protecting and returning value of the royalties to its shareholders. The other company is expected to be a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on the development and potential commercialization of innovative therapeutics for autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, including rosnilimab, ANB033 and ANB101. Upon completion of the proposed separation, which we expect to complete in the second quarter of 2026, we intend to launch the clinical-stage biotechnology company with adequate capital to fund operations for at least twelve months after the date the proposed separation is completed. While the proposed separation is anticipated to be a taxable event, we are focused on minimizing overall corporate and shareholder-level taxes across the entire transaction. Completion of the proposed separation is subject to final approval by our Board of Directors and other customary conditions, including the effectiveness of a registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”).

Our Wholly Owned Clinical-Stage Pipeline

Our antibodies are in development to treat inflammatory diseases. We believe these molecules have potential applicability across a broad range of autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, including in gastroenterology, rheumatology, dermatology, respiratory, and other therapeutic areas.

Rosnilimab

Rosnilimab is an IgG1 antibody that directly targets pathogenic T cells, such as activated Tph/Tfh and T effector cells, in the periphery or inflamed tissue. These T cells, when activated, proliferate and migrate, and secrete the inflammatory cytokines that are the drivers of autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. Rosnilimab is designed to selectively deplete pathogenic T cells in both inflamed tissue and the periphery while sparing non-pathogenic T cells, including naïve T cells, to preserve overall immune function and restore immune homeostasis. This drives specific immunological outcomes, such as a reduction in T cell proliferation, migration and cytokine secretion, and a reduction of plasma cell generation and autoantibody levels. We announced top-line data from a healthy volunteer Phase 1 trial of rosnilimab in November 2021 that supported advancement of rosnilimab into subsequent patient trials. A total of 144 subjects were enrolled in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled healthy volunteer Phase 1 trial, where single ascending dose (“SAD”) cohorts received subcutaneous (“SC”) or intravenous (“IV”) single doses of rosnilimab up to 600mg or placebo, while multiple ascending dose (“MAD”) cohorts received four weekly subcutaneous doses of rosnilimab ranging up to 400mg or placebo. Rosnilimab was generally well-tolerated and no dose-limiting toxicities were observed. Rosnilimab demonstrated a sustained systemic exposure and dose-proportionality with an estimated two-week half-life for subcutaneous and IV routes of administration.

In February 2025, we announced initial data, which was subsequently updated in June 2025, from rosnilimab’s randomized, placebo-controlled, global 424-patient, Phase 2b clinical trial for moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis. Patients were randomized to receive either 100mg of subcutaneous rosnilimab every four weeks (Q4W), 400mg Q4W, 600mg every two weeks, or placebo.

During the three-month placebo-controlled period, the trial achieved its primary endpoint by observing the reduction of disease activity using the disease activity score, 28 joints (DAS-28) C-Reactive Protein (“CRP”) score, as well as ACR20 response (an accepted Phase 3 registrational endpoint), at Week 12 in all three doses of rosnilimab compared to placebo. Rosnilimab achieved its secondary endpoint by demonstrating statistical significance in at least one dose and numerical superiority at all doses, including once monthly administration, on ACR20, ACR50 and with respect to the clinical disease activity index (“CDAI”) low disease activity (“LDA”) score at Week 12. Specifically, at Week 12, ACR20 achieved statistical significance at 100 mg (p < 0.05), 400 mg (p < 0.01), and 600 mg (p < 0.001); ACR50 achieved statistical significance at 600 mg (p < 0.05); and CDAI LDA achieved statistical significance at 100 mg (p < 0.05) and 400 mg (p < 0.01).

Following completion of the Week 14 visit, 69% (or 220 of the 318) rosnilimab-treated patients who achieved CDAI LDA at this timepoint continued their assigned treatment through six months in a blinded, all-active treatment period. At six months, rosnilimab results demonstrated deepening of responses through six months on CDAI LDA, CDAI remission and ACR70 and independent of prior treatments, including anti-TNFα, anti-IL6R or JAK inhibitors. Importantly, this was particularly observed in b/tsDMARD-experienced patients for the 400mg Q4W and 600mg Q2W doses, showing a dose response relative to the 100mg Q4W dose. Furthermore, Week 28 clinical responses across multiple measures, including CDAI LDA, mean CDAI, mean DAS28-CRP and ACR50/70, were durable off-drug through at least three months after the last rosnilimab dose, results which we believe suggest the potential for extended dosing (e.g., Q8W/Q12W) after initial monthly dosing. Due to the trial design, max response rates for rosnilimab have not yet been observed as strict criteria at Week 14, which prevented additional patients with meaningful improvement from continuing treatment in the trial.

A table summarizing the results for primary and secondary endpoints follows:

*p<0.05

**p<0.01

***p<0.001

Clinical outcomes were further substantiated by objective translational data. An approximately 50% reduction in the mean CRP from baseline, an objective measure of inflammation, was observed through Week 28 in rosnilimab patients who entered the all-active period. Additionally, translational blood and synovial biopsy biomarker data showed differentiated and consistent immunological impact with on-target pharmacological activity in rosnilimab patients that was not observed on placebo. In blood, rosnilimab demonstrated rapid, deep and sustained reductions of approximately 90% in pathogenic T cells (largely Tph, Tph and Teff cells), and an increase in total Tregs. Additionally, synovial biopsies of the most impacted joint taken at baseline and after six weeks showed a deep reduction of approximately 90% in pathogenic T cells (largely Tph cells) at the 400mg Q4W and 600mg Q2W doses, showing a dose response relative to the 100mg Q4W dose.

Consistent with prior rosnilimab studies, all rosnilimab doses through end-of-trial follow up at week 38 demonstrated no treatment-related serious adverse events (“SAEs”), malignancies, anaphylaxis or systemic hypersensitivity, and a low incidence of injection site reactions. Most adverse events (“AEs”) were mild to moderate in severity. Less than 2% of patients in the trial discontinued rosnilimab due to an AE, including only one patient after three months for a moderate headache treated with over-the-counter pain medication. Non-treatment related SAEs observed were consistent with known RA patient history and comorbidities.

ANB033

ANB033 is an antagonist of CD122, the common beta subunit shared by the IL-15 and IL-2 receptors. IL-15 and IL-2 signaling mediate the proliferation and survival of subsets of CD8+ and CD4 T+ cells, NK cells, as well as ILC2s. ANB033 is an antibody designed with an optimal epitope and affinity to CD122 that inhibits IL-15 and IL-2 signaling through both the intermediate affinity IL-2 receptor (comprised of CD122 and the common gamma subunit, CD132) and the high affinity IL-2 receptor (comprised of CD122, CD132 and the alpha receptor subunit for IL-2, CD25) expressed by activated CD4 Th1 and Th2 T cells as well as ILC2. Antagonizing CD122 has the potential to achieve and maintain remission of inflammation through the reduction of disease-causing cytolytic CD8 T cell subsets, including intraepithelial lymphocytes, NK cells and reducing inflammatory cytokine secretion by activated CD4+ Th1 and Th2 cells, as well as ILC2 cells.

We announced top-line data from a healthy volunteer Phase 1a trial of ANB033 in October 2025 that demonstrated no safety concerns at any dose and a rapid and sustained pharmacokinetic (“PK”) profile. A total of 80 subjects were enrolled in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled healthy volunteer Phase 1 trial, where SAD cohorts received SC or IV single doses of ANB033 or placebo, while MAD cohorts received four weekly SC doses of ANB033. ANB033 was generally well-tolerated and no SAE discontinuations or dose-limiting toxicities were observed in the study. ANB033 demonstrated an estimated two-to-three week half-life and full receptor occupancy for SC and IV routes of administration. A dose response was observed on relevant PD biomarkers. We observed responsive effects with both IV and SC modes of administration, with a 70-75% reduction in CD122-expressing CD8 T cells, which did not result in a meaningful reduction in overall CD8 T cells. Additionally, treatment with ANB033 effectively eliminated all CD122-expressing NK cells, but the overall NK cell count remained above the levels needed to maintain immune competency as not all NK cells in humans express CD122. No overall reductions were observed on regulatory T cell counts in the peripheral blood.

We are conducting a randomized placebo-controlled 60-patient, global Phase 1b trial cohort of ANB033 in CeD. This trial will assess both a cohort of patients with baseline villus height to crypt depth (“Vh:Cd”) ratio greater than 2.0 in a gluten-challenge to assess prevention of further mucosal damage, as well as a cohort of patients with a Vh:Cd ratio less than 2.0, who will not be subjected to a gluten-challenge, to assess the ability to heal mucosal damage in symptom-controlled patients. The two distinct cohorts will enroll 30 patients each, randomized 1:1 between one dose level of subcutaneously administered ANB033 dose and placebo. Key assessments include safety and tolerability, efficacy assessments including the change in Vh:Cd ratio, IEL counts, and PROs, such as the Celiac Disease Symptom Diary (“CDSD”), as well as PK and immunogenicity.

We are also conducting a randomized placebo-controlled 50-patient, global Phase 1b trial cohort of ANB033 in EoE. This trial will enroll adults who have histologic evidence of EoE with peak eosinophil count ≥15/hpf at the screening endoscopy and with symptomatic dysphagia. Key assessments include safety and tolerability, efficacy assessments including the Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (“DSQ”) and peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophilic count (“eos/hpf”), as well as PK and immunogenicity.

ANB101

ANB101 is a blood dendritic cell antigen 2 (“BDCA2”) modulator antibody that targets plasmacytoid dendritic cells (“pDCs”) and inhibits interferon secretion and modulates antigen presentation for the treatment of autoimmune and inflammatory diseases.

BDCA2 is a molecule specifically expressed on pDCs, a class of immune cells which, while found in relatively small numbers in healthy individuals, are enriched in patients with a variety of inflammatory diseases, that is critical to the regulation of toll-like receptor signaling and interferon secretion. pDCs are a key upstream node in the inflammatory cascade that serve as a bridge between innate and adaptive immunity. They have been shown to be prolific secretors of type I interferons, which drive activation of a variety of downstream cell types including T cells and monocytes. Together with their ability to present antigens to the adaptive immune system, this creates a pro-inflammatory environment for the establishment and perpetuation of autoimmune pathology. BDCA2 has been implicated in the pathophysiology of systemic lupus erythematosus (“SLE”), where there exists mechanistic clinical proof of concept for pDC modulation.

We initiated a Phase 1 clinical trial of ANB101 in healthy volunteers in March 2025 and the trial is ongoing. ANB101 preclinical data suggests it is a more potent antibody compared to litifilimab with a longer half-life that results in a deeper and more durable PD effect on pDC depletion.

Collaborative Programs

GSK Collaboration

Multiple company-discovered antibody programs have been advanced to preclinical and clinical milestones under our collaborations. Our collaborations include an immuno-oncology-focused collaboration with GSK.

Under the GSK Agreement, a Biologics License Application (“BLA”) for our most advanced partnered program, which is a PD-1 antagonist antibody called Jemperli (dostarlimab), was approved by the FDA in April 2021 for the treatment of advanced or recurrent deficient mismatch repair endometrial cancer (“dMMREC”). In February 2023, the FDA granted full approval for this indication (from an accelerated approval). In addition, in April 2021, the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) granted conditional marketing authorization in the European Union (“EU”) for Jemperli for use in women with mismatch repair deficient (“dMMR”)/microsatellite instability-high (“MSI-H”) recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer who have progressed on or following prior treatment with a platinum containing regimen. A second FDA approval was received in August 2021 for Jemperli in pan-deficient mismatch repair tumors (PdMMRT). In July 2023, the FDA approved Jemperli in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of adult patients with dMMR MSI-H primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. In December 2023, the EMA approved Jemperli plus chemotherapy for dMMR/MSI-H primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. In August 2024, the FDA approved Jemperli plus chemotherapy for all adult patients with primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. In January 2025, the EMA approved Jemperli plus chemotherapy for this same indication. In October 2025, GSK terminated the TIM-3 antagonist antibody development program under our existing collaboration, and all rights to the TIM-3 antagonist antibody will be reverted to us in the near future.

For the year ended December 31, 2025, GSK reported $1.1 billion in sales for Jemperli, a greater than 80% sales growth when compared to $598.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2024.

Vanda Collaboration

On January 31, 2025, we entered into an Exclusive License Agreement (the “Vanda License Agreement”) with Vanda pursuant to which we granted to Vanda an exclusive, global license for the development and commercialization of imsidolimab (IL-36R antagonist mAb), which has completed two registration-enabling global Phase 3 trials, GEMINI-1 and GEMINI-2, evaluating the safety and efficacy of imsidolimab in patients with generalized pustular psoriasis (“GPP”).

In December 2025, Vanda announced the submission of a BLA to the U.S. FDA for imsidolimab in GPP. The FDA accepted the BLA filing for imsidolimab in GPP in February 2026 with a target action date of December 12, 2026.

Pursuant to the terms of the Vanda License Agreement, we received an upfront payment of $10.0 million and a $5.0 million payment for existing drug supply. We are also eligible to receive a 10% royalty on net sales, as well as the following milestones under the Vanda License Agreement:

For more information about these collaborations, see Note 4 — Collaborative Research and Development Agreements in the accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements.

Our Product Candidates

The following table summarizes certain key information about our wholly owned product candidates:

Our Strategy

We are a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on delivering innovative immunology therapeutics. Our antibodies modulate key nodes governing the body’s regulation of autoimmunity and inflammation. Dysregulated immune responses may result in abnormal and pathological inflammation in diseases with large and substantially underserved patient populations in therapeutic areas including but not limited to gastroenterology, rheumatology, dermatology, and respiratory. The key elements of our strategy include:

As described in the section titled “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report, the clinical development of drug product candidates is subject to a wide range of risks and uncertainties, any of which could cause our actual development strategy or timeframes to vary.

Antibody Overview

Antibodies are complex proteins naturally generated by the immune system to neutralize foreign pathogens such as bacteria or viruses. B cells, a white blood cell type responsible for the generation of antibodies in response to pathogens, secrete billions of antibodies with different specificities into the bloodstream. Antibodies are structurally distinct Y-shaped proteins formed through the combination of two long proteins, called heavy chains, and two short proteins, called light chains. Each heavy and light chain pair forms a binding site where the antibody specifically binds its target, otherwise known as an antigen, at the Fab domain of the antibody molecule. The specificity of each antibody to a target, and the potency of its binding strength to that target are defined by the amino acid sequences of heavy and light chains in the Fab domain of the antibody molecule. The other end of the antibody, called the Fc domain, is responsible for communication between the antibody and the rest of the immune system.

Therapeutic antibodies are typically non-naturally occurring, or recombinant, antibodies specifically developed to treat human diseases by binding to certain proteins, and thereby modulating key biological processes. Therapeutic antibodies are injectable products that are typically dosed subcutaneously or intravenously, unlike synthetic chemistry-based “small molecule” therapeutics that may also be administered orally. Therapeutic antibodies have the following key features that we believe make them more predictable than small molecules:

Our approach to antibody design focuses on discovering and optimizing therapeutic antibodies tailored to modulate immune function. We use a variety of technologies to optimize the Fab domain of an antibody in ways that we believe both create a therapeutic antibody with highly potent functional activity and mitigate potential manufacturing liabilities.

We also optimize the Fc domain of the antibody, when needed, to tailor it for specific activity such as reducing Fc receptor interactions or optimizing Fc receptor interactions, in combination with the Fab domain of the antibody, to specifically modulate immune cell function, engage effector function that kills specific targeted immune cells, or leverage a combination of both activities. We further optimize the overall antibody through humanization and removal of liabilities that could potentially affect the structure, stability, pharmacology, manufacturability or immunogenicity of the antibody.

Optimized antibodies are tested in an extensive suite of immune cell assays, using engineered cell lines, and more relevantly, primary human immune cells from healthy and diseased individuals that we believe most accurately recapitulate the conditions in which the antibody will need to have optimal activity in patients.

We believe that our approach to antibody design allows us to effectively tailor antibodies to achieve a unique therapeutic benefit.

Collaborations

GSK Collaboration

In March 2014, we entered into a Collaboration and Exclusive License Agreement (the “GSK Agreement”) with TESARO, Inc. (“Tesaro”), an oncology-focused biopharmaceutical company now a part of GSK (Tesaro and GSK are hereinafter referred to, collectively, as “GSK”). Currently, under the GSK Agreement, GSK is developing Jemperli (dostarlimab) as a monotherapy and in combination with additional therapies, for various solid tumor indications.

For each remaining development program under the GSK Agreement, we are eligible to receive milestone payments if certain preclinical and clinical trial events are achieved by GSK, if certain U.S. and European regulatory submissions and approvals in multiple indications are achieved, and upon the achievement of specified levels of annual worldwide net sales. We will also be eligible to receive tiered 4-8% royalties related to worldwide net sales of products developed under the collaboration. On October 23, 2020, Amendment No. 3 to the GSK Agreement (the “GSK Amendment No. 3”) was agreed to by both parties to permit GSK to conduct development and commercialization in combination with any third party molecules of Zejula, an oral, once-daily poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor (“Zejula”). Under GSK Amendment No.3, we were granted increased royalties upon sales of Jemperli, equal to 8% of Net Sales (as defined in the GSK Agreement) below $1.0 billion, 12% of Net Sales between $1.0 billion and $1.5 billion, 20% of Net Sales between $1.5 billion and $2.5 billion and 25% of Net Sales above $2.5 billion. Unless earlier terminated by either party upon specified circumstances, the GSK Agreement will terminate, with respect to each specific developed product, upon the later of the 12th anniversary of the first commercial sale of the product or the expiration of the last to expire of any patent.

In October 2021, we signed a royalty monetization agreement (“Jemperli Royalty Monetization Agreement”) with Sagard Healthcare Royalty Partners, LP (“Sagard”). Under the terms of the Jemperli Royalty Monetization Agreement, we received $250.0 million in exchange for royalties and milestones payable to us under our GSK collaboration on annual global net sales of Jemperli.

In May 2024, we entered into an amendment to the Jemperli Royalty Monetization Agreement, Amendment No. 1 (the “Jemperli Amendment”) under which we sold additional receivables to Sagard in exchange for $50.0 million. The Jemperli Amendment includes all Jemperli sales, including any product containing Jemperli, whether or not such product constitutes a combination product, and the threshold amounts of aggregate Jemperli royalties and milestones to be received by Sagard under the

Jemperli Amendment is either $600.0 million if received by the end of March 31, 2031, or $675.0 million if received thereafter. Once either of these thresholds are met, the Jemperli Royalty Monetization Agreement and the Jemperli Amendment will expire, resulting in us regaining all subsequent Jemperli royalties and milestones. As of December 31, 2025, Sagard has accrued approximately $250.0 million in royalties and milestones. For more information, see Note 5 — Sale of Future Royalties in the accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements.

The GSK Agreement, as amended, expires when no further payments are due to us, unless earlier terminated. Either party may terminate the GSK Agreement, as amended, in the event of an uncured material breach by the other party. GSK may terminate the GSK Agreement, as amended, at any time upon 90 days’ prior written notice to us.

Intellectual Property

Our intellectual property is critical to our business and we strive to protect it, including by obtaining and maintaining patent protection in the United States and internationally for product candidates, novel biological discoveries, epitopes, new therapeutic approaches and potential indications, and other inventions that are important to our business. In total, our patent portfolio, including patents co-owned with GSK, patents licensed from Centessa Pharmaceuticals (UK) Ltd. (“Centessa”), and patents to certain antibody discovery technology consisted of approximately 96 issued patents and 120 pending patent applications as of December 31, 2025. The foregoing does not include certain patents and patent applications that are not material to our business and which we intend to let lapse.

For our product candidates, generally we initially pursue patent protection covering compositions of matter including antibody sequences, methods of use, and methods of production. Throughout the development of our product candidates, we seek to identify additional means of obtaining patent protection that would potentially enhance commercial success.

The patent portfolios for our internal programs are outlined below:

Rosnilimab

As of December 31, 2025, we owned 33 patents and pending patent applications in various countries directed to the antibody sequence of rosnilimab and its variants, methods of use and related matters. We intend to prosecute our pending applications, and/or other patent applications claiming priority thereto, and pursue patent issuance and protection in key commercial markets where significant product sales may occur. Patents that have issued or that may issue from or claim priority to our pending applications could provide protection for aspects of this product candidate until June 2040.

ANB033

As of December 31, 2025, we owned 16 pending U.S. provisional patent application and one pending international (PCT) patent application directed to the antibody sequence of ANB033 and its variants, methods of use and related matters. We intend to prosecute these patent applications, file additional patent applications claiming priority to these patent applications, and pursue patent issuance, in key commercial markets where significant product sales may occur. Patents that may issue claiming priority to these patent applications could provide protection for aspects of this product candidate until September 2045.

ANB101

As of December 31, 2025, we owned rights to 17 pending patent applications in various countries directed to the antibody sequence of ANB101 and its variants, methods of use and related matters. We intend to prosecute the pending applications, and/or other patent applications claiming priority thereto, and pursue patent issuance and protection in key commercial markets where significant product sales may occur. Patents that may issue from or claim priority to the pending applications could provide protection for aspects of these product candidates until August 2040.

Dostarlimab (GSK4057190)

As of December 31, 2025, we owned or co-owned 26 patents and patent applications in various countries directed to the antibody sequence of GSK4057190 (dostarlimab), a PD-1 antagonist, and its variants, methods of use and related matters. We intend to prosecute our pending applications, and/or other patent applications claiming priority thereto, and pursue patent issuance and

protection in key commercial markets where significant product sales may occur. Patents that have issued, or that may issue from or claim priority to our pending applications, could provide protection for aspects of this product until June 2038.

Imsidolimab

As of December 31, 2025, we owned 45 patents and patent applications in various countries directed to the antibody sequence of imsidolimab and its variants, methods of use and related matters. We intend to prosecute our pending applications, and/or other patent applications claiming priority thereto, and pursue patent issuance and protection in key commercial markets where significant product sales may occur. Patents that have issued, or that may issue from or claim priority to our pending applications could provide protection for aspects of this product candidate until May 2042.

License Agreement with Centessa

On November 24, 2023, we entered into an exclusive license agreement (as amended, the “Centessa Agreement”) with Centessa, pursuant to which we acquired the exclusive global development and commercialization rights to a blood dendritic cell antigen 2 (BDCA2) modulator antibody portfolio, including lead asset CBS004 (renamed ANB101) and the related family of antibodies, for the treatment of autoimmune and inflammatory diseases.

In connection with the Centessa Agreement, we paid Centessa an upfront cash payment of $4.0 million and an additional cash payment of $3.0 million as reimbursement to Centessa for manufacturing costs incurred. There were $0.3 million in transaction costs incurred. The total transaction amount of $7.3 million was expensed as in-process research and development and classified as an operating activity in the statement of cash flows. We accounted for the transaction as an asset acquisition as the set of acquired assets did not constitute a business.

Under the terms of the Centessa Agreement, Centessa may be entitled to receive potential future payments of up to $10.0 million upon the achievement of a certain event-based milestone and would be entitled to receive on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis, a royalty of low single digits on annual net sales of any product in the territory in each calendar year until, on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis, the latest of: (a) expiration of the last-to-expire licensed patent covering such product in such country, (b) expiration of regulatory exclusivity for such product in such country and (c) ten years after the first commercial sale of such product in such country. We have not recognized a liability for the associated $10.0 million contingent consideration because, as of December 31, 2025, achievement of the milestone is not probable in the near term.

Other Intellectual Property Matters

The patent positions of biotechnology companies like ours are generally uncertain and involve complex legal, scientific and factual questions. In addition, the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted after issuance. Consequently, we may not obtain or maintain adequate patent protection for any of our product candidates. We cannot predict whether the patent applications we are currently pursuing will issue as patents in any particular jurisdiction or whether the claims of any issued patents will provide sufficient proprietary protection from competitors. Any patents that we hold may be challenged, circumvented or invalidated by third parties. For a more comprehensive discussion of the risks related to our intellectual property, please see “Risk Factors— Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term of the patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries in which we file, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest date of filing a non-provisional patent application related to the patent. A U.S. patent also may be accorded a patent term adjustment (“PTA”) under certain circumstances to compensate for delays in obtaining the patent from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). In some instances, such a PTA may result in a U.S. patent term extending beyond 20 years from the earliest date of filing a non-provisional patent application related to the U.S. patent. In addition, the term of a U.S. patent that covers an FDA-approved drug may also be eligible for patent term extension, which permits patent term restoration as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the expiration of the patent. The length of the patent term extension is related to the length of time the drug is under regulatory review. Patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only one patent applicable to an approved drug may be extended. Similar provisions are available in Europe and other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. In the future, if and when our products receive FDA approval, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on patents covering those products. We plan to seek patent term extensions to any of our issued patents in any jurisdiction where these are available, however

there is no guarantee that the applicable authorities, including the FDA in the United States, will agree with our assessment of whether such extensions should be granted, and if granted, the length of such extensions.

We also rely on trade secrets relating to our research and development and product candidates and seek to protect and maintain the confidentiality of proprietary information to protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection. Although we take steps to protect our proprietary information and trade secrets, including through contractual means with our employees and consultants, third parties may independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information and techniques or otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or disclose our technology. Thus, we may not be able to meaningfully protect our trade secrets.

It is our policy to require our employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers and other advisors to execute confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of employment or consulting relationships with us. These agreements provide that all confidential information concerning our business or financial affairs developed or made known to the individual during the course of the individual’s relationship with us is to be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties except in specific circumstances. Our agreements with employees also provide that all inventions conceived by the employee in the course of employment with us or from the employee’s use of our confidential information are our exclusive property.

Manufacturing

We must manufacture our product candidates for clinical trial use in compliance with current good manufacturing practices (“cGMP”) regulations. The cGMP regulations include requirements relating to organization of personnel, buildings and facilities, equipment, control of materials, components and drug product containers and closures, production and process controls, packaging and labeling controls, holding and distribution, laboratory controls, records and reports, and returned or salvaged products. The manufacturing facilities for our product candidates must meet cGMP requirements and global regulatory requirements before any product is approved and we can manufacture commercial products. Our third party manufacturers will be subject to periodic regulatory inspections of facilities by the FDA and other authorities, including procedures and operations used in the testing and manufacture of our products to assess compliance with applicable regulations.

Our internal manufacturing capabilities include non-cGMP antibody and reagent production using small scale quantities for characterization and in vitro and in vivo preclinical assessment of product candidates. We do not have and we do not currently plan to acquire or develop the facilities or capabilities to manufacture our product candidates for use in human clinical trials.

We rely on third party manufacturers to generate cGMP compliant cell lines and will rely on them to produce cGMP drug substance and drug product required for our clinical trials, and we expect to continue to rely on third parties to manufacture clinical trial drug supplies for the foreseeable future. We also contract with additional third parties for the testing, labeling, packaging, storage and distribution of investigational drug products. We have personnel with significant technical, manufacturing, analytical, quality, including cGMP regulations, and project management experience to oversee our third party manufacturers and to manage manufacturing and quality data and information for regulatory compliance purposes. While our contract manufacturers have not yet produced commercially-approved cGMP batches of our product candidates, they have previously manufactured products for other companies in compliance with cGMP regulations and have been previously inspected by regulatory authorities for compliance with cGMP standards.

Failure to comply with statutory and regulatory requirements subjects a manufacturer to possible legal or regulatory action, including warning letters, the seizure or recall of products, injunctions, consent decrees placing significant restrictions on or suspending manufacturing operations and civil and criminal penalties. These actions could have a material impact on the availability of our products. Third party manufacturers often encounter difficulties involving production yields, quality control and quality assurance, as well as shortages of qualified personnel.

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by continuing technological advancement and significant competition. While we believe that our product candidates, technology, knowledge, experience and scientific resources provide us with competitive advantages, we face competition from major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies and public and private research institutions, among others. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. Key product features that would affect our ability to effectively compete with other therapeutics include the efficacy, safety and convenience of our products and the ease of use and effectiveness of any companion diagnostics. The level of generic competition and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third party payors will also significantly affect the pricing and competitiveness of our products. 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.

Many of the companies against which we may compete have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

Specifically, there are several companies developing or marketing treatments that may be approved for the same indications and/or diseases as our product candidates, including major pharmaceutical companies.

For rosnilimab, our competitors include non-depleting PD-1 agonist antibodies GS-0151, (Gilead) in Phase 1b development for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, and S-4321 (Seismic Therapeutics) in Phase 1 development. Our commercial-stage competitors in moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis include monoclonal antibodies targeting anti-TNF (Humira; Abbvie), IL-6 (Actemra; Roche and Kevzara; Regeneron), CD-80/86 (Orencia; BMS), CD-20 (Rituxan; Roche), and janus kinase inhibitors (Rinvoq; AbbVie, Olumiant; Eli Lilly, and Xeljanz; Pfizer).

For our anti-CD122 antagonist antibody program, our clinical competitors include an anti-CD122 antagonist antibody, FB-102 (Forte Bioscience) in Phase 2a development for the treatment of CeD, Phase 1b development for the treatment of vitiligo, and Phase 1b development for the treatment of alopecia areata, and two anti-IL-15 monoclonal antibodies, GIA632 (Novartis) in Phase 2a development for atopic dermatitis and with proof-of-concept, Phase 1b data for the treatment of CeD and EoE, and TEV-53408 (Teva), in Phase 2 development for the treatment of CeD and vitiligo. To date, there are no FDA-approved therapies for the treatment of celiac disease and only one FDA-approved biologic, Dupixent, for the treatment of EoE.

For our anti-BDCA2 program, our competitors include another anti-BDCA2 antibody, litifilimab (Biogen) in Phase 3 development for SLE and CLE, and a bispecific fusion protein targeting BDCA2 and BAFF/APRIL, DNTH212 (Dianthus Therapeutics) in Phase 1 development, and an anti-ILT7 antibody, daxdilimab (Amgen) in Phase 2 development.

Government Regulation and Product Approval

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries and jurisdictions, including the EU, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, post-approval monitoring and reporting, and import and export of pharmaceutical products. The processes for obtaining regulatory approvals in the United States and in foreign countries and jurisdictions, along with subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations and other regulatory authorities, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

FDA approval process

In the United States, pharmaceutical products are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDC Act”), and other federal and state statutes and regulations, govern, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, storage, recordkeeping, approval, labeling, promotion and marketing, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, sampling, and import and export of pharmaceutical products. Biological products used for the prevention, treatment, or cure of a disease or condition of a human being are subject to regulation under the FDC Act, except the section of the FDC Act which governs the approval of new drug applications (“NDAs”). Biological products are approved for marketing under provisions of the Public Health Service Act (“PHSA”), via a BLA. However, the application process and requirements for approval of BLAs are similar to those for NDAs, and biologics are associated with similar approval risks and costs as drugs. Failure to comply with applicable U.S. requirements may subject a company to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as clinical hold, FDA refusal to approve pending NDAs or BLAs, warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties, and criminal prosecution.

Biological product development for a new product or certain changes to an approved product in the United States typically involves preclinical laboratory and animal tests, the submission to the FDA of an investigational new drug application (“IND”), which must become effective before clinical testing may commence in the United States, and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish the safety and effectiveness of the drug for each indication for which FDA approval is sought. Satisfaction of FDA premarket approval requirements typically takes many years and the actual time required may vary substantially based upon the type, complexity, and novelty of the product or disease.

Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, formulation, and toxicity, as well as animal trials to assess the characteristics and potential safety and efficacy of the product. The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements, including good laboratory practices (“GLPs”). The results of preclinical testing are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND along with other information, including information about product chemistry, manufacturing and controls, and a proposed clinical trial protocol. Long term preclinical tests, such as animal tests of reproductive toxicity and carcinogenicity, may continue after the IND is submitted. A 30-day waiting period after the submission of each IND is required prior to the commencement of clinical testing in humans. If the FDA has neither commented on nor questioned the IND within this 30-day period, the clinical trial proposed in the IND may begin. Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational biologic to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of a qualified investigator. Clinical trials must be conducted: (i) in compliance with federal regulations; (ii) in compliance with good clinical practices (“GCPs”), an international standard meant to protect the rights and health of patients and to define the roles of clinical trial sponsors, administrators, and monitors; as well as (iii) under protocols detailing the objectives of the trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol involving testing on U.S. patients and subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND.

The FDA may order the temporary, or permanent, discontinuation of a clinical trial at any time, or impose other sanctions if it believes that the clinical trial either is not being conducted in accordance with FDA requirements or presents an unacceptable risk to the clinical trial patients. The trial protocol and informed consent information for patients in clinical trials must also be submitted to an institutional review board (“IRB”) for approval. An IRB may also require the clinical trial at the site to be halted, either temporarily or permanently, for failure to comply with the IRB’s requirements, or may impose other conditions.

Clinical trials to support BLAs for marketing approval are typically conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap. In Phase 1, the initial introduction of the biologic into healthy human subjects or patients, the product is tested to assess metabolism, pharmacokinetics, pharmacological actions, side effects associated with increasing doses, and, if possible, early evidence on effectiveness. Phase 2 usually involves clinical trials in a limited patient population to determine the effectiveness of the drug or biologic for a particular indication, dosage tolerance, and optimal dosage, and to identify common adverse effects and safety risks. If a compound demonstrates evidence of effectiveness and an acceptable safety profile in Phase 2 evaluations, Phase 3 clinical trials are undertaken to obtain the additional information about clinical efficacy and safety in a larger number of patients, typically at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, to permit the FDA to evaluate the overall benefit risk relationship of the drug or biologic and to provide adequate information for the labeling of the product. In most cases, the FDA requires two adequate and well-controlled Phase 3 clinical trials to demonstrate the efficacy of the biologic. A single Phase 3 clinical trial may be sufficient in rare instances, including (i) where the clinical trial is a large multicenter clinical trial demonstrating internal consistency and a statistically persuasive finding of a clinically meaningful effect on mortality, irreversible morbidity or prevention of a disease with a potentially serious outcome and confirmation of the result in a second clinical trial would be practically or ethically impossible or (ii) when in conjunction with other confirmatory evidence.

After completion of the required clinical testing, a BLA is prepared and submitted to the FDA. FDA approval of the BLA is required before marketing of the product may begin in the United States. The BLA must include the results of all preclinical, clinical, and other testing and a compilation of data relating to the product’s pharmacology, chemistry, manufacture, and controls. The cost of preparing and submitting a BLA is substantial. The submission of most BLAs is additionally subject to a substantial application user fee, and the applicant under an approved BLA is also subject to annual product and establishment user fees. These fees are typically increased annually. The FDA has 60 days from its receipt of a BLA to determine whether the application will be accepted for filing based on the agency’s threshold determination that it is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. Once the submission is filed, the FDA begins an in-depth review. The FDA has agreed to certain performance goals in the review of BLAs. Most such applications for standard review biologic products are reviewed within 10 months of the date the BLA is filed with the FDA; most applications for priority review biologics are reviewed within six months of the date the BLA is filed with the FDA. Priority review can be applied to a biologic that the FDA determines has the potential to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and, if approved, would be a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness compared to available therapies. The review process for both standard and priority review may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider certain late-submitted information or information intended to clarify information already provided in the submission.

The FDA may also refer applications for novel biologic products, or biologic 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. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it generally follows such recommendations. Before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP. Additionally, the FDA will inspect the facility or the facilities at which the biologic product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless compliance with cGMP regulations is satisfactory and the BLA contains data that provide substantial evidence that the biologic is safe, pure, potent and effective in the indication studied.

After the FDA evaluates the BLA and the manufacturing facilities, it issues either an approval letter or a complete response letter. A complete response letter generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing, or information, in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. If, or when, those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the BLA, the FDA will issue an approval letter. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in two or six months depending on the type of information included. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the biologic with specific prescribing information for specific indications. As a condition of BLA approval, the FDA may require a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (“REMS”) to help ensure that the benefits of the biologic outweigh the potential risks. REMS can include medication guides, communication plans for health care professionals, and elements to assure safe use (“ETASU”). ETASU can include, but are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring, and the use of patient registries. The requirement for a REMS can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. Moreover, product approval may require substantial post-approval testing and surveillance to monitor the product’s safety or efficacy.

Once granted, product approvals may be withdrawn if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained or problems are identified following initial marketing. Changes to some of the conditions established in an approved application, including changes in indications, labeling, or manufacturing processes or facilities, require submission and FDA approval of a new BLA or BLA supplement before the change can be implemented. A BLA supplement for a new indication typically requires clinical data similar to that in the original application, and the FDA uses the same procedures and actions in reviewing BLA supplements as it does in reviewing BLAs.

Foreign clinical studies to support an IND

The FDA will accept as support for an IND a well-designed, well-conducted, non-IND foreign clinical study if it was conducted in accordance with GCP and the FDA is able to validate the data from the study through an onsite inspection, if necessary. A sponsor or applicant who wishes to rely on a non-IND foreign clinical study to support an IND must submit the following supporting information to the FDA to demonstrate that the study conformed to GCP:

Disclosure of clinical trial information

Sponsors of clinical trials of FDA-regulated products, including biological products, are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, trial sites and investigators, and other aspects of the clinical trial is then made public as part of the registration. Sponsors are also obligated to discuss the results of their clinical trials after completion. Disclosure of the results of these clinical trials can be delayed in certain circumstances for up to two years after the date of completion of the clinical trial. Competitors may use this publicly available information to gain knowledge regarding the progress of development programs.

Pediatric information

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act (“PREA”), NDAs or BLAs or supplements to NDAs or BLAs must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the biological product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the biological product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant full or partial waivers, or deferrals, for submission of data. Unless otherwise required by regulation, the PREA does not apply to any biological product for an indication for which Orphan Drug Designation has been granted.

The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (“BPCA”) provides sponsors of NDAs with an additional six-month period of market exclusivity for all unexpired patent or non-patent exclusivity on all forms of the drug containing the active moiety if the sponsor submits results of pediatric studies specifically requested by the FDA under BPCA within required timeframes. The BPCA provides sponsors of BLAs an additional six-month extension for all unexpired non-patent market exclusivity on all forms of the biological containing the active moiety pursuant to the BPCA if the conditions under the BPCA are met.

Additional controls for biologics

To help reduce the increased risk of the introduction of adventitious agents, the PHSA emphasizes the importance of manufacturing controls for products whose attributes cannot be precisely defined. The PHSA also provides authority to the FDA to immediately suspend licenses in situations where there exists a danger to public health, to prepare or procure products in the event of shortages and critical public health needs, and to authorize the creation and enforcement of regulations to prevent the introduction or spread of communicable diseases in the United States and between states.

After a BLA is approved, the product may also be subject to official lot release as a condition of approval. As part of the manufacturing process, the manufacturer is required to perform certain tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. If the product is subject to official release by the FDA, the manufacturer submits samples of each lot of product to the FDA together with a release protocol showing a summary of the history of manufacture of the lot and the results of all of the manufacturer’s tests performed on the lot. The FDA may also perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of some products, such as viral vaccines, before releasing the lots for distribution by the manufacturer.

In addition, the FDA conducts laboratory research related to the regulatory standards on the safety, purity, potency, and effectiveness of biological products. As with drugs, after approval of biologics, manufacturers must address any safety issues that arise, are subject to recalls or a halt in manufacturing, and are subject to periodic inspection after approval.

Patent term restoration

After approval, owners of relevant drug or biologic patents may apply for up to a five year patent extension. The allowable patent term extension is calculated as half of the drug’s testing phase—the time between IND application and NDA or BLA submission—and all of the review phase—the time between NDA or BLA submission and approval up to a maximum of five years. The time can be shortened if FDA determines that the applicant did not pursue approval with due diligence. The total patent term after the extension may not exceed 14 years from the date of marketing approval.

For patents that might expire during the application phase, the patent owner may request an interim patent extension. An interim patent extension increases the patent term by one year and may be renewed up to four times. For each interim patent extension granted, the post-approval patent extension is reduced by one year. The director of the USPTO must determine that the drug covered by the patent for which a patent extension is being sought is likely to be approved. Interim patent extensions are not available for a drug or biologic for which an NDA or BLA has not been submitted.

Biosimilars

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”) created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products shown to be highly similar to or interchangeable with an FDA licensed reference biological product. Biosimilarity sufficient to reference a prior FDA-approved product requires that there be no differences in conditions of use, route of administration, dosage form, and strength, and no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency. Biosimilarity must be shown through analytical trials, animal trials, and a clinical trial or trials, unless the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) waives a required element. A biosimilar product may be deemed interchangeable with a prior approved product if it meets the higher hurdle of demonstrating that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product and, for products administered multiple times, the biologic and the reference biologic may be switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic. The first biosimilar was approved by the FDA in 2015, and the first interchangeable product was approved in 2021.

A reference biologic is granted 12 years of exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the reference product, and no application for a biosimilar can be submitted for four years from the date of licensure of the reference product. The first biologic product submitted under the abbreviated approval pathway that is determined to be interchangeable with the reference product has exclusivity against a finding of interchangeability for other biologics for the same condition of use for the lesser of (i) one year after first commercial marketing of the first interchangeable biosimilar, (ii) 18 months after the first interchangeable biosimilar is approved if there is no patent challenge, (iii) 18 months after resolution of a lawsuit over the patents of the reference biologic in favor of the first interchangeable biosimilar applicant, or (iv) 42 months after the first interchangeable biosimilar’s application has been approved if a patent lawsuit is ongoing within the 42-month period.

Post-approval requirements

Once a BLA is approved, a product will be subject to certain post-approval requirements. For instance, the FDA closely regulates the post-approval marketing and promotion of biologics, including standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, off-label promotion, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and promotional activities involving the internet.

Biologics may be marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling. Changes to some of the conditions established in an approved application, including changes in indications, labeling, or manufacturing processes or facilities, may require a submission to and approval by the FDA before the change can be implemented. A BLA supplement for a new indication typically requires clinical data similar to that in the original application and similar procedures and actions in reviewing BLA or supplements as in reviewing BLAs.

Adverse event reporting and submission of periodic reports are required following FDA approval of a BLA. The FDA also may require post-marketing testing, known as Phase 4 testing, REMS, and surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product, or the FDA may place conditions on an approval that could restrict the distribution or use of the product. In addition, quality control, biological product manufacture, packaging, and labeling procedures must continue to conform to cGMP regulations after approval. Biologic manufacturers and certain of their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies. Registration with the FDA subjects entities to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA, during which the agency inspects manufacturing facilities to assess compliance with cGMP regulations. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the areas of production and quality-control to maintain compliance with cGMP regulations. Regulatory authorities may withdraw product approvals or request product recalls if a company fails to comply with regulatory standards, if it encounters problems following initial marketing, or if previously unrecognized problems are subsequently discovered. In addition, biological product manufacturers in the U.S. must comply with applicable provisions of the Drug Supply Chain Security Act and provide and receive product tracing information, maintain appropriate licenses, ensure they only work with other properly licensed entities and have procedures in place to identify and properly handle suspect and illegitimate products.

Other U.S. health care laws and compliance requirements

In the United States, our activities are potentially subject to regulation by various federal, state and local authorities in addition to the FDA, including but not limited to, the CMS, other divisions of the HHS (such as the Office of Inspector General), the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), and individual U.S. Attorney offices within the DOJ, and state and local governments. For example, sales, marketing and scientific/educational grant programs may have to comply with the anti-fraud and abuse provisions of the Social Security Act, anti-kickback statutes, false claims laws, the privacy and security provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”), and similar state laws, each as amended, as applicable.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, any person or entity, from knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving any remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for the purchase, lease or order of any item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid or other federal health care programs. The term remuneration has been interpreted broadly to include anything of value. The Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand and prescribers, purchasers, and formulary managers on the other. There are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution. The exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly and practices that involve remuneration that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchasing or recommending may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. Failure to meet all of the requirements of a particular applicable statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor does not make the conduct per se illegal under the Anti-Kickback Statute. Instead, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a cumulative review of all of its facts and circumstances. Our practices may not in all cases meet all of the criteria for protection under a statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor.

Additionally, the intent standard under the Anti-Kickback Statute was amended by the ACA to a stricter standard such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the ACA codified case law that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal False Claims Act (discussed below).

The civil monetary penalties statute imposes penalties against any person or entity that, among other things, is determined to have presented or caused to be presented a claim to a federal health program that the person knows or should know is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent.

Federal false claims and false statement laws, including the federal False Claims Act, prohibit, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment to, or approval by, the federal health care programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, or knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to the federal government. As a result of a modification made by the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, a claim includes “any request or demand” for money or property presented to the U.S. government. Recently, several pharmaceutical and other health care companies have been prosecuted under these laws for allegedly providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product. Other companies have been prosecuted for causing false claims to be submitted because of the companies’ marketing of the product for unapproved, and thus generally non-reimbursable, uses.

HIPAA created additional federal criminal statutes that prohibit, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud or to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, any money or property owned by, or under the control or custody of, any health care benefit program, including private third party payors, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a health care offense, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by trick, scheme or device, a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for health care benefits, items or services. Like the Anti-Kickback Statute, the ACA amended the intent standard for certain health care fraud statutes under HIPAA such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.

Also, many states have similar fraud and abuse statutes or regulations that apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor. Additionally, to the extent that our product is sold in a foreign country, we may be subject to similar foreign laws.

We may be subject to data privacy and security regulations by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (“HITECH”), and its implementing regulations, imposes requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA’s privacy and security standards directly applicable to business associates, independent contractors or agents of covered entities that receive or obtain protected health information in connection with providing a service on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also created four new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce HIPAA and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, many state laws govern the privacy and security of health information in specified circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Additionally, the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act within the ACA, and its implementing regulations, require that certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biological and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) report annually to CMS information related to certain payments or other transfers of value made or distributed to physicians and teaching hospitals, or to entities or individuals at the request of, or designated on behalf of, the physicians and teaching hospitals and to report annually certain ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Moreover, the Drug Supply Chain Security Act imposes new obligations on manufacturers of pharmaceutical products related to product tracking and tracing. Legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products.

In order to distribute products commercially, we must comply with state laws that require the registration of manufacturers and wholesale distributors of drug and biological products in a state, including, in certain states, manufacturers and distributors who ship products into the state even if such manufacturers or distributors have no place of business within the state. Some states also impose requirements on manufacturers and distributors to establish the pedigree of product in the chain of distribution, including some states that require manufacturers and others to adopt new technology capable of tracking and tracing product as it moves through the distribution chain. Several states have enacted legislation requiring pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to establish marketing compliance programs, file periodic reports with the state, make periodic public disclosures on sales, marketing, pricing, clinical trials and other activities, and/or register their sales representatives, as well as to prohibit pharmacies and other health care entities from providing certain physician prescribing data to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for use in sales and marketing, and to prohibit certain other sales and marketing practices. All of our activities are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the federal and state health care laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including without limitation, civil, criminal and/or administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, exclusion from participation in government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, injunctions, private “qui tam” actions brought by individual whistleblowers in the name of the government, or refusal to allow us to enter into government contracts, contractual damages, reputational harm, administrative burdens, diminished profits and future earnings, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

Coverage, pricing and reimbursement

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any product candidates for which we obtain regulatory approval. In the United States and markets in other countries, sales of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend, in 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 health care 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. Third party payors are increasingly challenging the price, examining the medical necessity and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products, therapies and services, in addition to questioning their safety and efficacy. Further, reductions in health insurance and other healthcare funding as a result of the OBBBA may exacerbate the cost-consciousness of third-party payors and their willingness to provide coverage for newly developed products such as ours. As a result, we may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of our products, in addition to the costs required to obtain the FDA approvals. Our product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective. A payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the product. Adequate third party reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development.

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

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 adequate coverage and reimbursement. In addition, emphasis on managed care in the United States has increased and we expect will continue to increase the pressure on health care 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.

Healthcare reform

Healthcare reforms that have been adopted, and that may be adopted in the future, could result in further reductions in coverage and levels of reimbursement for pharmaceutical products, increases in rebates payable under U.S. government rebate programs and additional downward pressure on pharmaceutical product prices. Healthcare reform initiatives include the enactment of the Inflation Reduction Act (“IRA”), which, among other things, allows the HHS to negotiate the selling price of certain drugs and biologics that CMS reimburses under Medicare Part B and Part D, although only high-expenditure single-source drugs that have been approved for at least seven years (11 years for biologics) can be selected by CMS for negotiation, with the negotiated price taking effect two years after the selection year. For 2026, the first year in which negotiated prices become effective, CMS selected 10 high-cost Medicare Part D products in 2023, negotiations began in 2024, and the negotiated maximum fair price for each product has been announced. These negotiations resulted in significant price reductions for the products from their 2023 list prices, ranging from 38 to 79 percent, with an average price reduction of 59.4 percent. CMS has selected 15 additional Medicare Part D drugs for negotiated maximum fair pricing in 2027. For 2028, an additional 15 drugs, which may be covered under either Medicare Part B or Part D, will be selected, and for 2029 and subsequent years, 20 Part B or Part D drugs will be selected. Negotiations for Medicare Part D products begin in 2024 with the negotiated price taking effect in 2026, and negotiations for Medicare Part B products begin in 2026 with the negotiated price taking effect in 2028. In August 2023, HHS announced the 10 Medicare Part D drugs and biologics that it selected for

negotiations, and by October 1, 2023, each manufacturer of the selected drugs signed a manufacturer agreement to participate in the negotiations. HHS announced the negotiated maximum fair prices on August 15, 2024, and this price cap, which cannot exceed a statutory ceiling price, came into effect on January 1, 2026. Beginning in January 2023 for Medicare Part B and October 2022 for Medicare Part D, the IRA will also penalize drug manufacturers that increase prices of Medicare Part B and Part D drugs at a rate greater than the rate of inflation and in November 2024, CMS finalized regulations pertaining to these inflation rebates. The IRA permits the Secretary of HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. Manufacturers that fail to comply with the IRA may be subject to various penalties, including civil monetary penalties. Further, in July 2025, the OBBBA was signed into law, and restored immediate deductibility of domestic research and development expenditures, while foreign expenditures will continue to be capitalized and amortized over fifteen years. The OBBBA is expected to reduce Medicaid spending and enrollment by implementing work requirements for some beneficiaries, capping state-directed payments, reducing federal funding, and limiting provider taxes used to fund the program. The OBBBA also narrows access to ACA marketplace exchange enrollment and declined to extend the enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in ACA marketplaces, which expired in 2025. Additionally, in June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the longstanding Chevron doctrine, under which courts were required to give deference to regulatory agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous federal statutes. This decision could result in additional legal challenges to current regulations and guidance issued by federal agencies applicable to our operations, including those issued by the FDA. It is unclear to what extent other statutory, regulatory, and administrative initiatives will be enacted and implemented in the future.

We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“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 us 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.

Additional regulation

In addition to the foregoing, we are also subject to numerous federal, state and local laws relating to such matters as safe working conditions, manufacturing practices, environmental protection, fire hazard control, and disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances, including the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Resource Conservancy and Recovery Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act. These and other laws govern our use, handling and disposal of various biological, chemical and radioactive substances used in, and wastes generated by, our operations. If our operations result in contamination of the environment or expose individuals to hazardous substances, we could be liable for damages and governmental fines. We believe that we are in material compliance with applicable environmental laws and that continued compliance therewith will not have a material adverse effect on our business. We cannot predict, however, how changes in these laws may affect our future operations.

Europe / rest of world government regulation

In addition to regulations in the United States, we will be subject to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing, among other things, clinical trials and any commercial sales and distribution of our products. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval of a product, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign countries prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. Certain countries outside of the United States have a similar process that requires the submission of a clinical trial application much like the IND prior to the commencement of human clinical trials. In the United Kingdom (“UK”) and countries in the EU, for example, a Clinical Trial Authorisation (“CTA”) must be submitted to each country’s national health authority and an independent ethics committee, much like the FDA and IRB, respectively. Once the CTA is approved in accordance with a country’s requirements, clinical trial development may proceed. Because biologically sourced raw materials are subject to unique contamination risks, their use may be restricted in some countries. The requirements and process governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, the clinical trials are conducted in accordance with GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.

To obtain regulatory approval of an investigational drug or biological product under EU and UK regulatory systems, we must submit a marketing authorization application. The application used to file the BLA in the United States is similar to that required in the EU and the UK, with the exception of, among other things, country-specific document requirements. For other countries outside of the EU and the UK, such as countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, the clinical trials are conducted in accordance with GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.

If we or our potential collaborators fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.

Employees and Human Capital Resources

As of January 31, 2026, we had 104 employees. Of these employees, 72 were primarily engaged in research and development activities and 33 held a doctorate degree such as an M.D., Ph.D., or PharmD. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered by collective bargaining agreements. We have never experienced a work stoppage and believe that we have good employee relations.

We view our diverse employee population and our culture as key to our success. Our company culture prioritizes learning, supports growth and empowers us to reach new heights. We recruit employees with the skills and training relevant to succeed and thrive in their functional responsibilities. We assess the likelihood that a particular candidate will contribute to the Company’s overall goals, and beyond their specifically assigned tasks. Depending on the position, our recruitment reach can be local as well as national. We provide competitive compensation and benefits that are tailored specifically to the needs and requests of our employees.

Corporate Information

We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware in November 2005. Our principal executive offices are located at 10770 Wateridge Circle, Suite 210, San Diego, California 92121, and our telephone number is (858) 362-6295. Our website address is www.anaptysbio.com. The information contained on, or that can be accessed through, our website is not part of, and is not incorporated by reference into, this report.

Available Information

We file Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and other information with the SEC. Our filings with the SEC are available free of charge on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov and on our website under the “Investors” tab as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the risks described below, as well as the other information in this report, including our consolidated financial statements and the related notes and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” before deciding whether to invest in our common stock. The occurrence of any of the events or developments described below could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, and growth prospects. In such an event, the market price of our common stock could decline, and you may lose all or part of your investment.

Summary of Risk Factors

An investment in our common stock involves various risks, and prospective investors are urged to carefully consider the matters discussed in the section titled “Risk Factors” prior to making an investment in our common stock. These risks include, but are not limited to, the following:

Risks Related to Discovery and Development of Our Product Candidates

Our product candidates in development may fail or suffer delays that adversely affect their commercial viability. Results from our initial clinical trials may not be representative of the results we will experience in later clinical trials. If we or our collaborators are unable to complete development of or commercialize our product candidates or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

We are developing therapeutic antibodies, including our wholly owned product candidates, as well as other programs that are being developed by our collaborators. However, all of our wholly owned and most of partnered product candidates are in various stages of development, and, for a wide variety of reasons discussed below, may fail in development or suffer delays that adversely affect their commercial viability.

A product candidate can unexpectedly fail at any stage of preclinical and clinical development. The historical failure rate for product candidates is high due to scientific feasibility, safety, efficacy, changing standards of medical care, and other variables. The results from preclinical testing or early clinical trials of a product candidate may not predict the results that will be obtained in later phase clinical trials of the product candidate.

Furthermore, we may conduct clinical trials of a product candidate in multiple indications based on assumptions about the product candidate’s mechanism of action. However, it is possible that our assumptions regarding the effectiveness of a product candidate’s mechanism of action may be incorrect and that the product candidate may be ineffective in certain diseases or disorders. If this were the case, then the results from any clinical trials of a product candidate that we conduct are less likely to be positive. For example, even though we showed positive data for rosnilimab in our Phase 2b clinical trial in rheumatoid arthritis, data from rosnilimab’s Phase 2 clinical trial in ulcerative colitis was not positive.

If our other ongoing or future clinical trials of any of our product candidates, including rosnilimab, ANB033 or ANB101, are unsuccessful, whether for one of the reasons mentioned above or otherwise, our product candidates may be delayed in development or fail entirely, which would have a material adverse impact on our business.

The success of our current product candidates, and any other product candidates we may develop in the future, will depend on many factors, including the following:

If we do not achieve one or more of these factors in a timely manner or at all, we could experience significant delays or an inability to successfully commercialize our product candidates, which would harm our business.

Furthermore, delays or difficulties in patient enrollment or difficulties in retaining trial participants can result in increased costs, longer development times, or termination of a clinical trial. Clinical trials of a new product candidate require the enrollment of a sufficient number of patients, including patients who are suffering from the disease the product candidate is intended to treat and who meet other eligibility criteria. Rates of patient enrollment are affected by many factors, including the size of the patient population, the eligibility criteria for the clinical trial, the age and condition of the patients, the stage and severity of disease, the nature of the protocol, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, and the availability of effective treatments for the relevant disease. We may not be able to initiate our planned clinical trials if we are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials as required by the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities.

Our ongoing and planned clinical trials or those of our collaborators may reveal significant adverse events, toxicities or other side effects and may result in a safety profile that could inhibit regulatory approval or market acceptance of any of our product candidates.

In order to obtain marketing approval for any of our product candidates, we must demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the product candidate for the relevant clinical indication or indications through preclinical studies and clinical trials as well as additional supporting data. If our product candidates are associated with undesirable side effects in preclinical studies or clinical trials or have characteristics that are unexpected, we may need to interrupt, delay or abandon their development or limit development to more narrow uses or subpopulations in which the undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective.

It is not uncommon to observe results in human clinical trials that are unexpected based on preclinical testing, or to observe results in later stage clinical trials that are unexpected based on early clinical trials. Many product candidates fail in clinical trials despite promising preclinical and early clinical results. In addition, top-line results of a clinical trial, which generally reflect preliminary reviews of primary efficacy and/or safety results, do not necessarily predict final results, and any top-line findings or assessments are subject to change pending the completion of final data review procedures. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval for their products.

Some patients in our clinical trials have experienced adverse events, including SAEs. Subjects in our ongoing and planned clinical trials may in the future suffer significant adverse events or other side effects not observed in our preclinical studies or in our Phase 1, Phase 2 or Phase 3 clinical trials. The observed potency and kinetics of our product candidates in preclinical studies may not be observed in human clinical trials. We have tested the dosing frequency and route of administration of our product candidates in preclinical studies, which will inform our dosing strategy for future clinical trials, however such dose and route of administration may not result in sufficient exposure or pharmacological effect in humans and may lead to unforeseen toxicity not previously observed in preclinical testing. If preclinical studies of our product candidates fail to provide preliminary evidence of safety to the satisfaction of regulatory authorities or do not otherwise produce satisfactory results, we may incur additional costs or experience delays in initiating and/or advancing the development and commercialization of our product candidates. Further, if clinical trials of our product candidates fail to demonstrate safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of regulatory authorities or do not otherwise produce positive results, we or our collaborators may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of our product candidates.

If further significant adverse events or other side effects are observed in any of our current or future clinical trials, we may have difficulty recruiting patients to the clinical trial, patients may drop out of our trial, or we may be required to abandon the trial or our development efforts of that product candidate altogether. We, the FDA, or other applicable regulatory authorities, or an institutional review board or ethics committee, may suspend clinical trials of a product candidate at any time for various reasons, including a belief that subjects in such clinical trials are being exposed to unacceptable health risks or adverse side effects. Some potential therapeutics developed in the biotechnology industry that initially showed therapeutic promise in early-stage studies have later been found to cause side effects that prevented their further development. Even if the side effects do not preclude a product candidate from obtaining or maintaining marketing approval, undesirable side effects may inhibit market acceptance of the approved product due to its tolerability versus other therapies. Any of these developments could materially harm our business, financial condition and prospects.

Further, if any of our product candidates obtain marketing approval, toxicities associated with our product candidates may also develop after such approval and lead to a requirement to conduct additional clinical safety trials, additional warnings being added to the labeling, significant restrictions on the use of the product or the withdrawal of the product from the market. We cannot predict whether our product candidates will cause toxicities in humans that would preclude or lead to the revocation of regulatory approval based on preclinical studies or early-stage clinical testing.

We and/or our collaborators may be unable to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, required regulatory approvals in the United States or in foreign jurisdictions, which would materially impair our ability to commercialize and generate revenue from our product candidates.

Our ability to continue to develop our product candidates, and to have the potential to achieve and sustain profitability, depends on the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities permitting us to conduct human clinical trials and, if our product candidates are safe and effective, obtaining approval from the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities to market them and subsequently successfully commercializing them, either alone or with our collaborators. The research, testing, manufacturing, labeling, approval, selling, marketing and distribution of drug and biologic products are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities. Before commencing clinical trials in the United States for any product candidate, we must submit an IND to the FDA; foreign regulatory authorities enforce similar requirements for initiation of clinical trials in other countries. An IND or foreign equivalent requires extensive preclinical studies, and there is no guarantee that the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities will allow clinical trials to proceed based on the IND or equivalent submission. For example, although we have initiated toxicology studies for our product candidates, the FDA in the United States, or other foreign regulatory authorities, as applicable, may not allow our clinical trials to proceed in the regulatory authority’s jurisdiction if we are unable to show safety margins acceptable to the particular regulatory authority in appropriate animal species in our preclinical toxicology studies.

Even if we or our collaborators initiate and complete clinical trials for our product candidates, these product candidates will not be permitted to be marketed in the United States until approval of a BLA from the FDA is received, and will not be permitted to be marketed in other countries without marketing approval from foreign regulatory authorities. Obtaining approval of a BLA or other marketing approvals is often a lengthy, expensive and uncertain process over which the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities have substantial discretion. Other than submitting and receiving acceptance for initiation of our previous and current clinical trials in the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions, we have had only limited discussions with the FDA and no discussions with foreign regulatory authorities regarding the development plans for any of our product candidates or the designs of any of our later-stage clinical studies. We thus may not have the full benefit of the FDA’s or foreign regulatory authorities’ current thinking on clinical trial designs or product development for our target indications.

Preclinical studies and clinical trials are expensive, difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete, and are uncertain as to outcome. Product candidates, on average, take 10 to 15 years to be developed from the time they are discovered to the time they are approved and available for treating patients. The start or end of a clinical trial is often delayed or halted for many reasons, including:

Our product candidates may not be effective, may be only moderately effective, or may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that may preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use. Regulatory authorities may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data are insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical or other studies or clinical trials. In addition, varying interpretations of the data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing could delay, limit or prevent marketing approval of a product candidate. Moreover, regulatory authorities may determine that the clinical and other benefits of a product candidate do not outweigh the safety or other risks. Changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or changes in regulatory review for each submitted product application may also cause delays in or prevent the approval of an application.

If we or our collaborators experience any of the issues described above, or other similar or related issues, we or our collaborators may:

Further, in June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed its longstanding approach under the Chevron doctrine, which provided for judicial deference to regulatory agencies, including the FDA. As a result of this decision, we cannot be sure whether there will be increased challenges to existing agency regulations or how lower courts will apply the decision in the context of other regulatory schemes without more specific guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court. For example, this decision may result in more companies bringing lawsuits against the FDA to challenge longstanding decisions and policies of the FDA, which could undermine the FDA’s authority, lead to uncertainties in the industry, and disrupt the FDA’s normal operations, which could impact the timely review of any regulatory filings or applications we submit to the FDA.

Even if our product candidates receive regulatory approval, they will be subject to significant post-marketing regulatory requirements.

Any regulatory approvals that we or our collaborators may receive for our product candidates will require surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate, may contain significant limitations related to use restrictions for specified age

groups, warnings, precautions or contraindications, and may include burdensome post-approval study or risk management requirements. For example, the FDA may require a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy in order to approve our product candidates, which could entail requirements for a medication guide, physician communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. In addition, if the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities approve our product candidates, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion, import, export and recordkeeping for our product candidates will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as continued compliance with cGMP regulations and good clinical practices for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. In addition, manufacturers of drug products and their facilities are subject to continual review and periodic inspections by the FDA and other regulatory authorities for compliance with cGMP regulations and standards. If we, our collaborators or a regulatory agency discover previously unknown problems with a product, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facilities where the product is manufactured, a regulatory agency may impose restrictions on that product, the manufacturing facility or us or our collaborators, including requiring recall or withdrawal of the product from the market or suspension of manufacturing. In addition, failure to comply with FDA and foreign regulatory requirements may, either before or after product approval, if any, subject our company or our collaborators to administrative or judicially imposed sanctions, including:

The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit our ability, alone or with our collaborators, to commercialize our product candidates and generate revenue.

Advertising and promotion of any product candidate that obtains approval in the United States will be heavily scrutinized by the FDA, the DOJ, the HHS Office of Inspector General, state attorneys general, members of Congress and the public. Violations, including promotion of our products for unapproved (or off-label) uses, are subject to enforcement letters, inquiries and investigations, and civil and criminal sanctions by the government. Additionally, comparable foreign regulatory authorities will heavily scrutinize advertising and promotion of any product candidate that obtains approval outside of the United States.

In the United States, engaging in the impermissible promotion of our products for off-label uses can also subject us to false claims litigation under federal and state statutes, which can lead to civil and criminal penalties and fines and agreements that materially restrict the manner in which a company promotes or distributes drug products. These false claims statutes include the federal False Claims Act, which allows any individual to bring a lawsuit against a biotechnology company on behalf of the federal government alleging submission of false or fraudulent claims, or causing to present such false or fraudulent claims, for payment by a federal program such as Medicare or Medicaid. If the government prevails in the lawsuit, the individual will share in any fines or settlement funds. Such False Claims Act lawsuits against biotechnology companies have increased significantly in volume and breadth, leading to several substantial civil and criminal settlements regarding certain sales practices promoting off-label drug uses involving fines in excess of $1.0 billion. This growth in litigation has increased the risk that a biotechnology company will have to defend a false claim action, pay settlement fines or restitution, agree to comply with burdensome reporting and compliance obligations, and be excluded from Medicare, Medicaid and other federal and state health care programs. In addition, we may incur liability from claims initiated under the Lanham Act or other federal and state unfair competition laws with respect to how our products are marketed and promoted. Furthermore, the off-label use of our products may increase the risk of product liability claims.

If we do not lawfully promote our approved products, we may become subject to such litigation and, if we do not successfully defend against such actions, those actions may have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may not be successful in our efforts to expand our pipeline of product candidates and develop marketable products.

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, our business depends on our successful development and commercialization of the limited number of internal product candidates we have in preclinical and clinical development. Even if we are successful in continuing to build our pipeline, development of the potential product candidates that we identify will require substantial investment in additional clinical development, management of clinical, preclinical and manufacturing activities, regulatory approval in multiple jurisdictions, building a commercial organization, and significant marketing efforts before we generate any revenue from product sales. Furthermore, such product candidates may not be suitable for clinical development, including as a result of their harmful side effects, limited efficacy or other characteristics that indicate that they are unlikely to be products that will receive marketing approval and achieve market acceptance. If we cannot successfully develop, partner and/or commercialize product candidates, we may not be able to obtain product or partnership revenue in future periods, which would adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

As a result of our current focus on our lead product candidates, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable products. Our understanding and evaluation of biological targets for the discovery and development of new product candidates may fail to identify challenges encountered in subsequent preclinical and clinical development. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights.

We are assessing advancement to Phase 3 of clinical development of rosnilimab in RA, and have no history of commercializing biotechnology products, which may make it difficult to evaluate the prospects for our future viability.

Our operations to date have been largely limited to financing and staffing our company and developing our wholly owned product candidates and other product candidates in partnerships with our collaborators. As a company, we have only very limited experience conducting pivotal Phase 3 clinical trials and have not had previous experience commercializing product candidates, including submitting a BLA to the FDA. In part because of this lack of experience, we cannot be certain that planned clinical trials will begin or be completed on time, if at all, that our planned development programs would be acceptable to the FDA or other regulatory authorities, or that, if approval is obtained, such product candidates can be successfully commercialized. Clinical trials and commercializing our wholly owned product candidates will require significant additional financial and management resources, and reliance on third party clinical investigators, CROs, consultants or collaborators. Relying on third party clinical investigators, third party manufacturing, CROs or collaborators may result in delays that are outside of our control.

Furthermore, we may not have the financial resources to continue development of, or to enter into collaborations for, a product candidate if we experience any problems or other unforeseen events that delay or prevent regulatory approval of, or our ability to commercialize, product candidates, including:

Consequently, any predictions you make about our future success or viability based on our operating history may not be as accurate as they could be if we had an established track record in conducting clinical trials or commercializing products.

Further, as a clinical-stage business, we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays, and other known and unknown factors. We will need to transition from a company with a research and development focus to a company capable of supporting commercial activities. We may not be successful in such a transition.

We face significant competition, and if our competitors develop and market products that are more effective, safer or less expensive than our product candidates, our commercial opportunities will be negatively impacted.

The biotechnology industry is highly competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change. Products we may develop in the future are also likely to face competition from other drugs and therapies, some of which we may not currently be aware of. We have competitors both in the United States and internationally, including major multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, established biotechnology companies, specialty biotechnology companies, emerging and start-up companies, universities and other research institutions. Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial, manufacturing, marketing, drug development, technical and human resources and commercial expertise than we do. Large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, in particular, have extensive experience in clinical testing, obtaining regulatory approvals, recruiting patients and manufacturing biotechnology products. These companies also have significantly greater research and marketing capabilities than we do and may also have products that have been approved or are in late stages of development and collaborative arrangements in our target markets with leading companies and research institutions. Established pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies may also invest heavily to accelerate discovery and development of novel compounds or to in-license novel compounds that could make the product candidates that we develop obsolete. As a result of all of these factors, our competitors may succeed in obtaining patent protection and/or approval from the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities or discovering, developing and commercializing products in our field before we do.

For rosnilimab, our competitors include non-depleting PD-1 agonist antibodies GS-0151, (Gilead) in Phase 1b development for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, and S-4321 (Seismic Therapeutics) in Phase 1 development. Our commercial-stage competitors in moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis include monoclonal antibodies targeting anti-TNF (Humira; Abbvie), IL-6 (Actemra; Roche and Kevzara; Regeneron), CD-80/86 (Orencia; BMS), CD-20 (Rituxan; Roche), and janus kinase inhibitors (Rinvoq; AbbVie, Olumiant; Eli Lilly, and Xeljanz; Pfizer).

For our anti-CD122 antagonist antibody program, our clinical competitors include an anti-CD122 antagonist antibody, FB-102 (Forte Bioscience) in Phase 2a development for the treatment of CeD, Phase 1b development for the treatment of vitiligo, and Phase 1b development for the treatment of alopecia areata, and two anti-IL-15 monoclonal antibodies, GIA632 (Novartis) in Phase 2a development for atopic dermatitis and with proof-of-concept, Phase 1b data for the treatment of CeD and EoE, and TEV-53408 (Teva), in Phase 2 development for the treatment of CeD and vitiligo. To date, there are no FDA-approved therapies for the treatment of celiac disease and only one FDA-approved biologic, Dupixent, for the treatment of EoE.

For our anti-BDCA2 program, our competitors include another anti-BDCA2 antibody, litifilimab (Biogen) in Phase 3 development for SLE and CLE, and a bispecific fusion protein targeting BDCA2 and BAFF/APRIL, DNTH212 (Dianthus Therapeutics) in Phase 1 development, and an anti-ILT7 antibody, daxdilimab (Amgen) in Phase 2 development.

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe effects, are more convenient, are less expensive or capture significant market share

prior to or during our commercialization. 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 biosimilar products. Even if our product candidates achieve marketing approval, they may be priced at a significant premium over competitive biosimilar products if any have been approved by then.

Smaller and other early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These companies compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for planned clinical trials and acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. In addition, the biotechnology industry is characterized by rapid technological change. If we fail to stay at the forefront of technological change, we may be unable to compete effectively. Technological advances or products developed by our competitors may render our technologies or product candidates obsolete, less competitive or not economical.

Our product candidates may not achieve adequate market acceptance among physicians, patients, health care payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.

Even if our product candidates receive regulatory approval, they may not gain adequate market acceptance among physicians, patients, health care payors and others in the medical community. The degree of market acceptance of any of our approved product candidates will depend on a number of factors, including:

If any product candidate is approved but does not achieve an adequate level of acceptance by physicians, hospitals, health care payors and patients, we may not generate or derive sufficient revenue from that product candidate and may not become or remain profitable.

We currently have no marketing and sales force. If we are unable to establish effective sales or marketing capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to sell or market our product candidates, we may not be able to effectively sell or market our product candidates, if approved, or generate product revenue.

We currently do not have a marketing or sales team for the marketing, sales and distribution of any of our product candidates that are able to obtain regulatory approval. In order to commercialize any product candidates, we must build on a territory-by-territory basis marketing, sales, distribution, managerial and other non-technical capabilities or make arrangements with third parties to perform these services, and we may not be successful in doing so. If our product candidates receive regulatory approval, we may decide to establish an internal sales or marketing team with technical expertise and supporting distribution capabilities to commercialize our product candidates, which will be expensive and time-consuming and will require significant attention of our

management team to manage. Any failure or delay in the development of our internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities would adversely impact the commercialization of any of our product candidates that we obtain approval to market. With respect to the commercialization of all or certain of our product candidates, we may choose to collaborate, either globally or on a territory-by-territory basis, with third parties that have direct sales forces and established distribution systems, either to augment our own sales force and distribution systems or in lieu of our own sales force and distribution systems. If we are unable to enter into such arrangements when needed on acceptable terms, or at all, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any of our product candidates that receive regulatory approval, or any such commercialization may experience delays or limitations. If we are not successful in commercializing our product candidates, either on our own or through collaborations with one or more third parties, our future product revenue will suffer and we may incur significant additional losses.

The manufacture of biologics is complex, and our third party manufacturers may encounter difficulties in production. If any of our third party manufacturers encounter such difficulties, our ability to provide supply of our product candidates for clinical trials, our ability to obtain marketing approval, or our ability to provide supply of our products for patients, if approved, could be delayed or stopped.

The process of manufacturing biologics is complex, highly regulated and subject to multiple risks, and requires significant expertise and capital investment, including the development of advanced manufacturing techniques and process controls. Manufacturing biologics is highly susceptible to product loss due to contamination, equipment failure, improper installation or operation of equipment, vendor or operator error, inconsistency in yields, variability in product characteristics and difficulties in scaling the production process. Even minor deviations from normal manufacturing processes could result in reduced production yields, product defects and other supply or supply chain disruptions. If microbial, viral or other contaminations are discovered at the facilities of our manufacturer, such facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination, which could delay clinical trials and adversely harm our business. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties, including manufacturers based in China, for the manufacture of our product candidates and future product candidates. We and our contract manufacturers must comply with cGMP regulations for the manufacturing of biologics used in clinical trials and, if approved, marketed products. Moreover, if the FDA determines that our manufacturer is not in compliance with FDA laws and regulations, including cGMP regulations, the FDA may deny BLA approval until the deficiencies are corrected or we replace the manufacturer in our BLA with a manufacturer that is in compliance.

Furthermore, all of our therapeutic antibodies are manufactured by starting with cells which are stored in a cell bank. We have one master cell bank for each antibody manufactured in accordance with cGMP regulations and create working cell banks to support cGMP manufacturing, and believe we would have adequate backup should any cell bank be lost in a catastrophic event. However, it is possible that we could lose multiple cell banks and have our manufacturing severely impacted by the need to replace the cell banks.

Scaling up a biologic manufacturing process is a difficult and uncertain task, and we may not be successful in transferring our production system or the manufacturer may not have the necessary capabilities to complete the implementation and development process. If we are unable to adequately validate or scale-up the manufacturing process with our current manufacturers, we will need to transfer to other manufacturers and complete the manufacturing validation process, which can be lengthy and costly. Even if we are able to adequately validate and scale-up the manufacturing process for our product candidates with contract manufacturers, we will still need to negotiate with such contract manufacturers agreements for commercial supply, and it is not certain we will be able to come to agreement on terms acceptable to us. Accordingly, failures or difficulties faced at any level of our manufacturing process could adversely affect our business and delay or impede the development and commercialization of our product candidates or products and could have an adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, there are risks associated with large scale manufacturing for clinical trials or commercial scale including, among others, cost overruns, potential problems with process scale-up, process reproducibility, stability issues, compliance with good manufacturing practices, lot consistency and timely availability of raw materials. Even if we or our collaborators obtain regulatory approval for any of our product candidates, there is no assurance that manufacturers will be able to manufacture the approved product to specifications acceptable to the FDA or other regulatory authorities, to produce it in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements for the potential launch of the product or to meet potential future demand. Moreover, we source certain of the raw materials needed for our product candidates from outside the United States. Although we have not experienced any material supply interruptions to date, it is possible that political, economic or public health events could cause such interruptions in the future. Further, legislation has been introduced in Congress to limit certain U.S. biotechnology companies from using equipment or services produced or provided by select Chinese biotechnology companies, although such legislation has not yet advanced. We cannot predict what actions may

ultimately be taken with respect to trade relations between the United States and China or other countries, what products and services may be subject to such actions or what actions may be taken by the other countries in retaliation. Any unfavorable government policies on international trade, such as export controls, capital controls or tariffs, new legislation or regulations, renegotiation of existing trade agreements, or any retaliatory trade actions due to recent or future trade tension, may impede, delay, limit, or increase the cost of manufacturing our product candidates. Such events could result in our clinical or commercial supply of drug, packaging and other services being interrupted or limited, which could harm our business. If our manufacturers are unable to produce sufficient quantities for clinical trials or for commercialization, commercialization efforts would be impaired, which would have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects. Any delay or interruption in the supply of clinical trial supplies could delay the completion of planned clinical trials, increase the costs associated with maintaining clinical trial programs and, depending upon the period of delay, require us to commence new clinical trials at additional expense or terminate clinical trials completely. Any adverse developments affecting clinical or commercial manufacturing of our product candidates or products may result in shipment delays, inventory shortages, lot failures, product withdrawals or recalls, or other interruptions in the supply of our product candidates or products.

Some of our suppliers may experience disruption to their respective supply chain due to the effects of macroeconomic conditions, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.

We obtain certain drug intermediates of our drug candidate supply from countries affected by macroeconomic events and conditions, including inflation, interest rate fluctuations, uncertainty with respect to the federal budget and debt ceiling and existing or potential government shutdowns related thereto, increasing financial market volatility and uncertainty, the impact of war or military conflict, including regional conflicts around the world, and public health pandemics. Supply chain disruptions and delays as a result of any new tariff policies or trade restrictions could also negatively impact our cost of materials, production processes, and ability to conduct clinical trials. If we are unable to obtain certain drug intermediates of our drug candidate supply in sufficient quantity and in a timely manner due to disruptions in the global supply chain caused by macroeconomic events and conditions, the development, testing and clinical trials of that drug candidate may be delayed or infeasible, and regulatory approval or commercial launch of any resulting product may be delayed or not obtained, which could significantly harm our business.

The macroeconomic and geopolitical environment may have a material impact on the U.S. and global economies and could materially impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The macroeconomic and geopolitical environment, including inflation, increased volatility in interest rates, tariffs and the debt and equity markets, instability in the global banking system, global health crises and pandemics and geopolitical conflict have had, and may continue to have, an adverse impact on global economic conditions, which could have an adverse effect on our business and financial condition, including impairing our ability to raise additional capital on favorable terms. The extent to which any such factors impact our business and operations will depend on future developments that are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted, including new information that may emerge concerning the severity of the event and the actions to contain its impact.

We are subject to risks associated with foreign trade policy, including recent tariffs imposed or proposed by the United States on its trading partners, as well as retaliatory actions that have or may be imposed by other countries in response. The recent U.S. tariffs and other trade restrictions against trading partners and specific sectors of the global economy may have an adverse effect on our business and financial condition. The United States has imposed many country-specific tariffs at a rate higher than the 10% global baseline on all foreign countries and continues to impose increased tariffs on China in particular. At this time, the impact of the recently imposed and proposed tariff actions with respect to our operations remains uncertain given ongoing bilateral negotiations between the United States and trading partners, changes in U.S. policy, and an ongoing Section 232 investigation by the U.S. Department of Commerce, which may result in the imposition of an additional tariff rate on U.S. imports of pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients. Our products involve pharmaceutical ingredients that are partially sourced from outside of the United States, including China, the cost of which may increase due to additional tariff rates. Higher material costs may negatively impact our gross margins and operating results and our ability to be competitive in the global market.

Changes in government trade policies, including changes to tariffs and other non-tariff barriers, may have a material impact on our results of operations.

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Capital Needs

We have limited operating revenue and a history of operational losses and may not achieve or sustain profitability. We have no products approved for commercial sale, and to date we have not generated any revenue or profit from sales of our product candidates.

We are a clinical-stage biotechnology company with a limited operating history. We have no approved products. To date, our revenue has been primarily derived from our GSK research collaboration and license agreement and royalty monetization agreements based on our GSK collaboration, and we are significantly dependent on such collaborators for the successful development of product candidates in these collaborations. Our ability to generate revenue and become profitable depends upon our ability, alone or with our collaborators, to successfully complete the development of our product candidates for our target indications and to obtain necessary regulatory approvals.

Since our inception, we have incurred significant operating losses in every year except fiscal year 2014. For the year ended December 31, 2025, our collaboration revenue was $234.6 million and our net loss was $13.2 million. As of December 31, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $772.6 million.

We have financed our operations primarily through our initial public offering of common stock in January 2017, our follow-on public offerings of common stock in October 2017, September 2018, and August 2024, and royalty monetization transactions such as the Royalty Monetization Agreements. We have devoted substantially all of our efforts to research and development. Rosnilimab has completed a Phase 2b clinical trial, and we expect that it will be several years, if ever, before any of our active product candidates are ready for commercialization. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and increasing operating losses for the foreseeable future, and the net losses we incur may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter. Our revenue has been historically derived from amortization of upfront payments, research and development funding, and milestone and royalty payments under collaboration and license agreements with our collaborators. Our ability to generate future product revenue from our current or future product candidates depends on a number of additional factors, including our ability (or as applicable our collaborators’ ability) to:

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 because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with product development. In addition, our expenses could increase significantly beyond expectations if we are required by the FDA or other regulatory authorities to perform studies or clinical trials in addition to those that we currently anticipate. Even if any of our product candidates are approved for commercial sale, we anticipate incurring significant costs associated with the commercial launch of any product candidate.

We are currently only in the clinical development stages for our most advanced product candidates. In order to become and remain profitable we must, alone or with our collaborators, develop and eventually commercialize a product or products with significant market potential. This may require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including completing clinical trials of our product candidates, successfully developing companion diagnostics, obtaining marketing approval for these product candidates and manufacturing, marketing and selling those products for which we may obtain marketing approval. We may never succeed in these activities and, even if we do, may never generate revenues that are significant or large enough to achieve profitability. If we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would decrease the value of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, maintain or expand our research and development efforts, expand our business or continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company would also cause you to lose part or even all of your investment.

We will require additional capital to finance our operations, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. As a result, we may not complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates or develop new product candidates.

As a research and development company, our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since our inception. We expect our research and development expenses to increase in connection with our ongoing activities, which expenses may substantially increase if we conduct Phase 3 clinical trials or seek marketing approval for our product candidates without any partnerships. In addition, if we obtain marketing approval for any of our product candidates, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to product sales, marketing, manufacturing and distribution. Furthermore, we incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company. We believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and investments will fund our current operating plan for at least the next 12 months. However, circumstances may cause us to consume capital more rapidly than we currently anticipate. For example, as we continue to move our product candidates into and through clinical trials, we may have adverse results requiring us to find new product candidates. Any of these events may increase our development costs more than we expect. We may need to raise additional funds or otherwise obtain funding through collaboration agreements to continue development of our product candidates. If we need to secure additional financing, such additional fundraising efforts may divert our management from our day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates.

In addition, we cannot guarantee that future financing will be available in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, if at all. If we do not raise additional capital when required or on acceptable terms, we may need to:

If we need to conduct additional fundraising activities and we do not raise additional capital in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, we may be prevented from pursuing development and commercialization efforts, which will have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and prospects. Adverse macroeconomic conditions, including volatility in equity capital markets, fluctuating interest rates, tariffs, actual or perceived instability in the U.S. and global banking systems, and fluctuations in foreign exchange rates, could prevent us from raising additional capital in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us or at all. Our forecast of the period of time through which our financial resources will adequately support our operations is a forward-looking statement and involves risks and uncertainties, and actual results could vary as a result of a number of factors, including the factors discussed elsewhere in this “Risk Factors” section. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Our future funding requirements, both short and long-term, will depend on many factors, including:

If we cannot expand our operations or otherwise capitalize on our business opportunities due to a lack of capital, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our existing stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our product candidates on unfavorable terms to us.

We may seek additional capital through a variety of means, including through public or private equity, debt financings or other sources, including up-front payments and milestone payments from strategic collaborations, license agreements and royalty agreements. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a stockholder. Such financing may result in dilution to stockholders, imposition of debt covenants, increased fixed payment obligations, or other restrictions that may affect our business. If we raise additional funds through up-front payments or milestone payments pursuant to strategic collaborations with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our product candidates or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us. In addition, we may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans.

Risk Factors Related to Our Proposed Separation

The proposed separation of our business into two independent, publicly traded companies is subject to various risks and uncertainties and may not be completed on the terms or timeline currently contemplated, if at all, and will involve significant time, effort and expense, which could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

On September 29, 2025, we announced the intent to separate our business into two independent, publicly traded companies, referred to as “Royalty Management Co” and as “Biopharma Co.” Following the separation, Royalty Management Co is expected to hold and continue to manage the rights to our Jemperli royalties from GSK and imsidolimab milestones and royalties from Vanda, with a focus on protecting and returning value of the royalties to its shareholders. Biopharma Co is expected to be a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on the development and potential commercialization of innovative therapeutics for autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, including rosnilimab, ANB033 and ANB101.

We expect the proposed separation to be completed in the second quarter of 2026, subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions. Unexpected developments, including adverse market conditions or delays or difficulties effecting the proposed separation, could delay, prevent or otherwise adversely impact the anticipated benefits from the proposed separation. Consummation of the proposed separation also will require final approval from our Board of Directors. We may not complete the proposed separation on the terms or on the timeline that we announced, or may, for any or no reason and at any time until the proposed separation is complete, abandon the separation or modify or change its terms. Any of the foregoing may result in not achieving the operational, financial, strategic and other benefits we anticipate, and in each case, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be adversely affected.

We will incur significant expenses in connection with the proposed separation, and such costs and expenses may be greater than we anticipate. In addition, completion of the proposed separation will require a significant amount of management time and effort, which may disrupt our business or otherwise divert management’s attention from other aspects of our business, including strategic initiatives, discovery, development and commercialization efforts and relationships with our partners and other third parties. If the proposed separation is completed, we anticipate management’s time and attention will be allocated between the two public-traded companies, which may result in operational disruptions and harm to either or both businesses. Any of the foregoing could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The proposed separation may not achieve some or all of the anticipated benefits.

Even if the proposed separation is completed, the anticipated operational, financial, strategic and other benefits of the separation may not be achieved. The combined value of the common stock of the two publicly-traded companies may not be equal to or greater than what the value of our common stock would have been had the proposed separation not occurred. The combined value of the common stock of the two companies could be lower than anticipated for a variety of reasons, including the failure of either company to operate and compete effectively as an independent, publicly-traded company. The common stock price of each company may experience periods of extreme volatility. In addition, the two independent companies will be smaller and less diversified, with a narrower business focus, and may be more vulnerable to changing market conditions. The completion of the proposed separation may also present a number of significant risks to our operations and internal processes, including the allocation of management’s time and attention between the two companies and the failure to maintain an adequate control environment due to changes to our infrastructure technology systems and financial reporting processes.

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties

Our existing collaboration with GSK and other collaborations are important to our business, and other future collaborations may also be important to us. If we are unable to maintain the GSK collaboration, or if this collaboration is not successful, our business could be adversely affected.

We have entered into a collaboration with GSK to develop certain of our product candidates. GSK has advanced multiple antibodies generated through our collaboration into clinical trials. If our collaboration with GSK were terminated, we may not receive all or any of the funding potentially coming from such collaboration, which could adversely affect our business or financial condition. For example, in October 2023, GSK terminated the LAG-3 antagonist antibody development program, and in October 2025, GSK also terminated the TIM-3 antagonist antibody development program under our existing collaboration. As a result, we will not receive any additional milestones or any royalties from GSK for those development programs.

We are unable to predict the success of our collaborations. Our collaborators have discretion in determining and directing the efforts and resources, including the ability to discontinue all efforts and resources, they apply to the development and, if approval is obtained, commercialization and marketing of the product candidates covered by such collaborations. As a result, our collaborators may elect to de-prioritize our programs, change their strategic focus or pursue alternative technologies in a manner that results in reduced, delayed or no revenue to us. Our collaborators may have other marketed products and product candidates under collaboration with other companies, including some of our competitors, and their corporate objectives may not be consistent with our best interests. Our collaborators may also be unsuccessful in developing or commercializing our products. If our collaborations are unsuccessful, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be adversely affected.

In addition, any dispute or litigation proceedings with our collaborators could delay development programs, create uncertainty as to ownership of intellectual property rights, distract management from other business activities and generate substantial expense. For example, we are currently party to litigation regarding our collaboration agreement with GSK and Tesaro. On November 20, 2025, we filed a Verified Complaint in Delaware Chancery Court, requesting a court declaration that Tesaro has materially breached the

Collaboration Agreement and that GSK, Tesaro’s corporate parent, has tortiously interfered with the Collaboration Agreement. We have requested that the court declare that we are entitled to all rights and remedies under the Collaboration Agreement. See Item 3. Legal Proceedings for additional information. While this litigation is pending, the ownership of related intellectual property rights may be uncertain, and management is spending significant time and resources. Tesaro and its affiliate Tesaro Development, Ltd. separately filed suit against AnaptysBio the same day, requesting a declaration that they have not materially breached and that AnaptysBio has materially breached its duties. If the litigations were to result in a negative outcome for us, it may have a materially negative impact on our rights under the Collaboration Agreement and our financial position going forward.

Previously, in October 2020, we settled a matter with Tesaro and GSK related to an alleged breach of our collaboration agreement in connection with GSK’s development of a drug not covered by the agreement. There can be no assurance that we will not encounter such issues under our collaborations with GSK or other parties in the future.

We may not succeed in establishing and maintaining additional development and commercialization collaborations, which could adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize product candidates.

In addition to our current licensing arrangements, a part of our strategy is to enter into additional strategic product development and commercialization collaborations in the future, including collaborations to broaden and accelerate clinical development and potential commercialization of our product candidates. We may face significant competition in seeking appropriate development partners, and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. Moreover, we may not succeed in our efforts to establish collaborations or other alternative arrangements for any of our other existing or future product candidates and programs because our research and development pipeline may be insufficient, our product candidates and programs may be deemed to be at too early a stage of development for collaborative effort, and/or third parties may not view our product candidates and programs as having the requisite potential to demonstrate safety and efficacy or to be commercially viable. Even if we are successful in our efforts to establish new collaborations, the terms that we agree upon may not be favorable to us, and we may not be able to maintain such collaborations if, for example, development or approval of a product candidate is delayed or sales of an approved product candidate are disappointing. Any delay in entering into new collaboration agreements related to our product candidates could delay the development and commercialization of our product candidates and reduce their competitiveness if they reach the market.

Moreover, if we fail to establish and maintain additional collaborations related to our product candidates:

If third parties on which we depend to conduct our planned preclinical studies and clinical trials do not perform as contractually required, fail to satisfy regulatory or legal requirements or miss expected deadlines, our development programs could be delayed with adverse effects on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We rely on third party clinical investigators, CROs, CMOs and consultants to design, conduct, supervise and monitor key activities relating to, discovery, manufacturing, non-clinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates, and we intend to do the same for future activities relating to existing and future programs. Because we rely on third parties and do not have the ability to conduct all required discovery, manufacturing, preclinical studies or clinical trials independently, we have less control over the timing, quality and other aspects of discovery, manufacturing, preclinical studies and clinical trials than we would if we conducted them on our own. These investigators, CROs, CMOs and consultants are not our employees, and we have limited control over the amount of time and resources that they dedicate to our programs. These third parties may have contractual relationships with other entities, some of which may be our competitors, which may draw time and resources from our programs. The third parties we contract with might not be diligent, careful or timely in conducting our discovery, manufacturing, preclinical studies or clinical trials, resulting in discovery, manufacturing, preclinical studies or clinical trials being delayed or unsuccessful, in whole or in part.

If we cannot contract with acceptable third parties on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, or if these third parties do not carry out their contractual duties, satisfy legal and regulatory requirements for the conduct of preclinical studies or clinical trials or meet expected deadlines, our clinical development programs could be delayed and otherwise adversely affected. In all events, we are

responsible for ensuring that each of our preclinical studies and clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the trial. Our reliance on third parties that we do not control does not relieve us of these responsibilities and requirements. Any such event could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We rely completely on third parties to manufacture our nonclinical, clinical and future commercial drug supplies of any approved products.

We outsource the manufacture of our product candidates. We do not currently have the infrastructure or internal capability to manufacture supplies of our product candidates for use in development and commercialization. If we were to experience an unexpected loss of supply of our product candidates for any reason, whether as a result of manufacturing, supply or storage issues or otherwise, our business would be harmed, and we could experience delays, disruptions, suspensions or terminations of, or be required to restart or repeat, any pending or ongoing clinical trials. Although we generally do not begin a clinical trial unless we believe we have a sufficient supply of a product candidate to complete the clinical trial, we may be required to manufacture additional supplies of our product candidates to the extent our estimates of the amounts required prove inaccurate, we suffer unexpected losses of product candidate supplies, or we are required to have fresh product candidate supplies manufactured to satisfy regulatory requirements or specifications. Any significant delay or discontinuation in the supply of a product candidate, or the raw material components thereof, due to the need to replace a contract manufacturer or other third party manufacturer or otherwise, could considerably harm our business and ability to generate revenue and delay completion of our clinical trials, product testing and potential regulatory approval of our product candidates.

Any delays in our preclinical or clinical development could lead to delays or cancellations of forecasted manufacturing batches, which would typically result in significant fees owed by us to the manufacture and an uncertainty as to when the manufacturer will have the availability for a new time slot to manufacture the batch, which could lead to further delays in the development of the product candidate and have an adverse effect on our business.

Reliance on third party manufacturers entails additional risks, including the possible breach of the manufacturing agreement by the manufacturer and the possible termination or nonrenewal of the agreement by the manufacturer at a time that is costly or inconvenient for us. If our contract manufacturers were to breach or terminate their manufacturing arrangements with us, the development or commercialization of the affected product candidates could be significantly delayed, which could have an adverse effect on our business. Any change in our manufacturers could be costly because the commercial terms of any new arrangement could be less favorable and because the expenses relating to the transfer of necessary technology and processes could be significant.

We depend on a small number of suppliers for the raw materials necessary to produce our product candidates. The loss of these suppliers, or their failure to supply us with these raw materials, would materially and adversely affect our business.

We depend on the availability of key raw materials for our product candidates from a small number of third party suppliers. Because there are a limited number of suppliers for the raw materials that we use to manufacture our product candidates, we may need to engage alternate suppliers to prevent a possible disruption of the manufacture of the materials necessary to produce our product candidates for our clinical trials. We do not have any control over the availability of raw materials. If we or our manufacturers are unable to purchase these raw materials on acceptable terms, at sufficient quality levels, or in adequate quantities, if at all, the development of our product candidates would be delayed or there would be a shortage in supply, which would impair our ability to meet our development objectives for our product candidates or generate revenues from the sale of any approved products. If either we or any third parties in the supply chain for materials used in the production of our product candidates are disrupted, including by political, economic or public health events, it could limit our ability to manufacture our product candidates for our preclinical or clinical studies.

Risks Related to Regulatory Approval of Our Product Candidates and Other Legal Compliance Matters

The failure to obtain regulatory approval in international jurisdictions would prevent us or our collaborators from marketing our product candidates outside the United States.

In order to market and sell our products in other jurisdictions, we or our collaborators must obtain separate marketing approvals and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements. The approval procedure varies among countries and can involve additional testing. The time required to obtain approval may differ substantially from that required to obtain FDA approval. The regulatory approval process outside the United States generally includes all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval.

In addition, in many countries outside the United States, we or our collaborators must secure product reimbursement approvals before regulatory authorities will approve the product for sale in that country. Obtaining foreign regulatory approvals and compliance with foreign regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products in certain countries.

If we or our collaborators fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets and receive applicable marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our product candidates will be harmed, and our business will be adversely affected. We may not obtain foreign regulatory approvals on a timely basis, if at all. The failure to obtain approval of any of our product candidates by regulatory authorities in another country may significantly diminish the commercial prospects of that product candidate and our business prospects could decline.

Any drugs we develop may become subject to unfavorable third party reimbursement practices and pricing regulations.

The availability and extent of coverage and adequate reimbursement by governmental and private payors is essential for most patients to be able to afford expensive treatments. Sales of any of our product candidates that receive marketing approval will depend substantially, both in the United States and internationally, on the extent to which the costs of our product candidates will be paid by health maintenance, managed care, pharmacy benefit and similar health care management organizations or reimbursed by government health administration authorities, private health coverage insurers and other third party payors. If reimbursement is not available, or is available only to limited levels, we or our collaborators may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow us to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize a sufficient return on our investment. Coverage and reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product candidate for which marketing approval is obtained. If coverage and reimbursement are not available or reimbursement is available only at limited levels, we or our collaborators may not successfully commercialize any product candidate for which marketing approval is obtained.

There is significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement for new products are typically made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”), an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, because CMS decides whether and to what extent a new product will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare. Private payors often follow CMS’s decisions regarding coverage and reimbursement to a substantial degree. However, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a drug product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the drug product. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us or our collaborators to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance.

Increasingly, third party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. Further, such payors are increasingly examining the medical necessity and reviewing the cost effectiveness of medical drug products. There may be especially significant delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for newly approved drugs. Third party payors may limit coverage to specific drug products on an approved list, known as a formulary, which might not include all FDA-approved drugs for a particular indication. We or our collaborators may need to conduct expensive pharmaco-economic studies to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost effectiveness of our products. Nonetheless, our product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost effective. We cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement will be available for any product that we or our collaborators commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, what the level of reimbursement and the timing of achieving a reimbursement determination will be.

Outside the United States, international operations are generally subject to extensive governmental price controls and other market regulations, and we believe the increasing emphasis on cost containment initiatives in Europe, Canada and other countries has and will continue to put pressure on the pricing and usage of therapeutics, including our product candidates. In many countries, particularly the countries of the EU, the prices of medical products are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we or our collaborators may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost effectiveness of our product candidate to other available therapies. In general, the prices of products under such systems are substantially lower than in the United States. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for products but monitor and control company profits. Additional foreign price controls or other changes in pricing regulation could restrict the amount that we are able to charge for our product candidates. Accordingly, in markets outside the

United States, the reimbursement for our product candidates may be reduced compared with the United States and may be insufficient to generate commercially reasonable revenue and profits.

Moreover, increasing efforts by governmental and third party payors, in the United States and internationally, to cap or reduce health care costs may cause such organizations to limit both coverage and level of reimbursement for new products approved, and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for our product candidates. We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of any of our product candidates due to the trend toward managed health care, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations and additional legislative changes. The downward pressure on health care costs in general, particularly prescription drugs and surgical procedures and other treatments, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products into the health care market.

In addition to CMS and private payors, professional organizations such as the American Medical Association can influence decisions about reimbursement for new products by determining standards for care. In addition, many private payors contract with commercial vendors who sell software that provide guidelines that attempt to limit utilization of, and therefore reimbursement for, certain products deemed to provide limited benefit to existing alternatives. Such organizations may set guidelines that limit reimbursement or utilization of our product candidates.

If we or our collaborators are unable to establish or sustain coverage and adequate reimbursement for any future product candidates from third party payors, the adoption of those product candidates and sales revenue will be adversely affected, which, in turn, could adversely affect the ability to market or sell those product candidates, if approved. 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 or our collaborators receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

Healthcare legislative reform measures may increase the difficulty and cost for us or our collaborators to obtain marketing approval of and commercialize our product candidates and affect the pricing of our product candidates.

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could, among other things, prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our or our collaborators’ ability to profitably sell any product candidates for which marketing approval is obtained. The commercial potential for our product candidates, if any, could be affected by changes in healthcare spending and policy in the United States and abroad. New laws, regulations, or judicial decisions or new interpretations of existing laws, regulations, or decisions, related to healthcare availability, the method of delivery, or payment for healthcare products and services could adversely affect our business, operations, and financial condition, if and when we or our collaborators are able to obtain marketing approval and commercialize our product candidates.

For example, the ACA was enacted in 2010, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacts the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. While there have been legislative and judicial efforts to modify, repeal or otherwise invalidate all or certain aspects of the ACA or its implementing regulations, the ACA remains in effect in its current form. It is unclear how any such efforts in the future will impact the ACA or our business.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States federal and state levels to reduce healthcare expenditures. For example, several healthcare reform initiatives culminated in the enactment of the IRA, in August 2022, which allows, among other things, the HHS to negotiate the selling price of certain drugs and biologics that CMS reimburses under Medicare Part B and Part D, although this only applies to high-expenditure single-source drugs that have been approved for at least 7 years (11 years for biologics). For 2026, the first year in which negotiated prices become effective, CMS selected 10 high-cost Medicare Part D products in 2023, negotiations began in 2024, and the negotiated maximum fair price for each product has been announced. These negotiations resulted in significant price reductions for the products from their 2023 list prices, ranging from 38 to 79 percent, with an average price reduction of 59.4 percent. CMS has selected 15 additional Medicare Part D drugs for negotiated maximum fair pricing in 2027. For 2028, an additional 15 drugs, which may be covered under either Medicare Part B or Part D, will be selected, and for 2029 and subsequent years, 20 Part B or Part D drugs will be selected. The negotiated prices have represented, and will continue to represent, a significant discount from average prices to wholesalers and direct purchasers. The IRA also imposes rebates on Medicare Part B and Part D drugs whose prices have increased at a rate greater than the rate of inflation. In addition, the law eliminated the “donut hole” under Medicare Part D beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost and requiring manufacturers to subsidize, through a newly established manufacturer discount program, 10% of Part D

enrollees’ prescription costs for brand drugs below the out-of-pocket maximum, and 20% once the out-of-pocket maximum has been reached. The IRA permits the Secretary of HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. Manufacturers that fail to comply with the IRA may be subject to various penalties, including civil monetary penalties. Further, in July 2025, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (“OBBBA”) was signed into law, and restored immediate deductibility of domestic research and development expenditures, while foreign expenditures will continue to be capitalized and amortized over fifteen years. Further, the OBBBA is expected to reduce Medicaid spending and enrollment by implementing work requirements for some beneficiaries, capping state-directed payments, reducing federal funding, and limiting provider taxes used to fund the program. The OBBBA also narrows access to ACA marketplace exchange enrollment and declined to extend the enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in ACA marketplaces which expired in 2025.

It is likely that federal and state legislatures within the United States and foreign governments will continue to consider changes to existing healthcare legislation. These laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding. We cannot predict the reform initiatives that may be adopted in the future or whether initiatives that have been adopted will be repealed or modified.

We expect that the ACA, the IRA, the OBBBA and other state or federal healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our products.

Our business entails a significant risk of product liability, and our ability to obtain sufficient insurance coverage could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

Our business exposes us to significant product liability risks inherent in the development, testing, manufacturing and marketing of therapeutic treatments. Product liability claims could delay or prevent completion of our development programs. If we or our collaborators succeed in marketing any of our product candidates, such claims could result in an FDA investigation of the safety and effectiveness of our product candidates, our manufacturing processes and facilities or our marketing programs and potentially a recall of our products or more serious enforcement action, limitations on the approved indications for which they may be used or suspension or withdrawal of approvals. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may also result in decreased demand for our products, injury to our reputation, costs to defend the related litigation, a diversion of management’s time and our resources, substantial monetary awards to trial participants or patients and a decline in our stock price. We currently have product liability insurance that we believe is appropriate for our stage of development and may need to obtain higher levels prior to marketing any of our product candidates. Any insurance we have or may obtain may not provide sufficient coverage against potential liabilities. Furthermore, clinical trial and product liability insurance is becoming increasingly expensive. As a result, we may be unable to obtain sufficient insurance at a reasonable cost to protect us against losses caused by product liability claims that could have an adverse effect on our business.

Our relationships with customers and third party payors will be subject to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, transparency and other health care laws and regulations, which could expose us to, among other things, criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm, administrative burdens and diminished profits and future earnings.

Health care providers and third party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any product candidates for which we or our collaborators obtain marketing approval. Our future arrangements with third party payors and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other health care laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we or our collaborators market, sell and distribute our product candidates for which marketing approval is obtained. Restrictions under applicable federal and state health care laws and regulations include the following:

The ACA, among other things, amended the intent standard of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and criminal health care fraud statutes to a stricter standard such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of this statute or specific intent to violate it. In addition, the ACA codified case law 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 federal False Claims Act.

Some state laws require biotechnology companies to comply with the biotechnology industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government and may require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other health care providers or marketing expenditures. For example, several states now require prescription drug companies to report certain expenses relating to the marketing and promotion of drug products and to report gifts and payments to individual health care practitioners in these states. Other states prohibit various marketing-related activities, such as the provision of certain kinds of gifts or meals. Still other states require the posting of information relating to clinical studies and their outcomes. Some states require the reporting of certain pricing information, including information pertaining to and justifying price increases. Some states further require pharmaceutical companies to implement compliance programs and/or marketing codes. Compliance with these laws is difficult and time consuming, and companies that do not comply with these state laws face civil penalties.

Our failure to comply with privacy and data security laws, regulations and standards may cause our business to be materially adversely affected.

We process a quantity of sensitive, confidential and/or regulated information, including confidential business and patient health information in connection with our clinical trials, and are subject to U.S. and international laws and regulations governing the privacy and security of such information. Each of these laws is subject to varying interpretations and constantly evolving. In the United States, there are numerous federal and state privacy and data security laws and regulations governing the collection, use, disclosure, processing and protection of personal information, including federal and state health information privacy laws, federal and state security breach notification laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws. In the EU and United Kingdom (“UK”), their respective General Data Protection Regulations (collectively, “GDPR”), which apply extraterritorially, impose several strict requirements for controllers and processors of personal information. These include higher standards for obtaining consent from individuals to process their personal information, increased requirements pertaining to the processing of special categories of personal information (such as health information) and pseudonymized (i.e., key-coded) data, and heightened transfer requirements of personal information from the European Economic Area/UK/Switzerland to countries not deemed to have adequate data protections laws (including the United States). Companies that must comply with the GDPR face increased compliance obligations and risk, including more robust regulatory enforcement of data protection requirements and potential fines for noncompliance of up to €20 million (approximately $22.6 million) or four percent of the annual global revenues of the noncompliant company, whichever is greater.

In the United States, in addition to HIPAA, various federal (for example, the Federal Trade Commission) and state regulators have adopted, or are considering adopting, laws and regulations concerning personal information and data security. Certain state laws may be more stringent or broader in scope, or offer greater individual rights, with respect to personal information than federal, international, or other state laws, and such laws may differ from each other, all of which may impact our compliance efforts. For example, California enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act (as amended, the “CCPA”). Failure to comply with the CCPA may result in significant civil penalties, injunctive relief, or statutory or actual damages as determined by the California Privacy Protection Agency or the California Attorney General. Following California’s lead, over a third of U.S. states have adopted comprehensive privacy and security laws and regulations, which govern the privacy, processing and protection of personal information, including certain specific requirements and laws with respect to health-related information. For example, Washington state has passed the My Health My Data Act, which is focused on the collection of consumer health data, has a broader scope than HIPAA and includes a private right of action. In addition, various comprehensive federal privacy bills have been proposed in Congress.

We cannot provide assurance that (i) current or future legislation will not prevent us from generating or maintaining personal information, or (ii) patients will consent to the use of their personal information (as necessary). Either of these circumstances may prevent us from undertaking or continuing essential research and development, manufacturing, and commercialization, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, and prospects.

Federal, state, and foreign government requirements include obligations to notify regulators and/or individuals of security breaches or other similar reportable incidents experienced by us, or our vendors, contractors, or organizations with whom we had specific contractual obligations to protect our data. Further, the improper access to, use of, or disclosure of our data or a third party’s personal information could subject us to individual or consumer class action litigation and governmental investigations and proceedings by federal, state, and local regulatory entities in the U.S. and by international regulatory entities. Compliance with these and any other applicable privacy and data security laws and regulations is a rigorous and time-intensive process, and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms ensuring compliance with existing and new data protection rules and possible government oversight.

In addition to government regulation, privacy advocates and industry groups have and may in the future propose self-regulatory standards from time to time. These and other industry standards may legally or contractually apply to us, or we may elect to comply with such standards. It is possible that if our practices are not consistent or viewed as not consistent with legal and regulatory requirements, including changes in laws, regulations and standards or new interpretations or applications of existing laws, regulations and standards, we may become subject to audits, inquiries, whistleblower complaints, adverse media coverage, investigations, loss of export privileges, or severe criminal or civil sanctions, all of which may have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, reputation, and financial condition. All of these evolving compliance and operational requirements impose significant costs, such as costs related to organizational changes, implementing additional protection technologies, training employees and engaging consultants, which are likely to increase over time. In addition, such requirements may require us to modify our data processing practices and policies, distract management or divert resources from other initiatives and projects, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Any failure or perceived failure by us to comply with any applicable federal, state, or similar foreign laws and regulations relating to data privacy and security could result in damage to our reputation, as well as proceedings or litigation by governmental agencies or other third parties, including class action privacy litigation in certain jurisdictions, which would subject us to significant fines, sanctions, awards, injunctions, penalties, or judgments. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, and prospects.

Our employees may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements and insider trading.

We are exposed to the risk of employee fraud or other misconduct. Misconduct by employees could include failures to comply with FDA regulations, to provide accurate information to the FDA, to comply with federal and state health care fraud and abuse laws and regulations, to report financial information or data accurately or to disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the health care industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Employee misconduct could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. We have adopted a code of conduct, but it is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct. The precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in

controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions.

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

If we are unable to obtain or protect intellectual property rights, we may not be able to compete effectively in our market.

Our success depends in significant part on our and our licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ ability to establish, maintain and protect patents and other intellectual property rights and operate without infringing the intellectual property rights of others. We have filed numerous patent applications both in the United States and in foreign jurisdictions to obtain patent rights to inventions we have discovered. We have also licensed from third parties rights to patent portfolios. Some of these licenses give us the right to prepare, file and prosecute patent applications and maintain and enforce patents we have licensed, and other licenses may not give us such rights. The patent prosecution process is expensive and time-consuming, and we and our current or future licensors, licensees or collaborators may not be able to prepare, file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we or our licensors, licensees or collaborators will fail to identify patentable aspects of inventions made in the course of development and commercialization activities before it is too late to obtain patent protection on them. Moreover, in some circumstances, we may 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 or license to third parties and are reliant on our licensors, licensees or collaborators. Therefore, these patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. If our current or future licensors, licensees or collaborators fail to establish, maintain or protect such patents and other intellectual property rights, such rights may be reduced or eliminated. If our licensors, licensees or collaborators are not fully cooperative or disagree with us as to the prosecution, maintenance or enforcement of any patent rights, such patent rights could be compromised.

The patent position of biotechnology companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our and our current or future licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ patent rights are highly uncertain. Our and our licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ 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. The patent examination process may require us or our licensors, licensees or collaborators to narrow the scope of the claims of our or our licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ pending and future patent applications, which may limit the scope of patent protection that may be obtained. In the past, we have not always been able to obtain the full scope of patent protection we have initially sought in our patent applications, and as described above and as is typical for most biotechnology patent prosecution, we have been required to narrow or eliminate patent claims as part of the patent prosecution process. Recent case law has increased uncertainty regarding the validity and enforceability of patents that contain broad antibody claims, including claims drafted in functional or genus form, even where examples are provided. As a result, patent claims that we or our licensors, licensees or collaborators obtain now or in the future could be narrowed during prosecution, or later held invalid or unenforceable. The ability to obtain and maintain meaningful patent protection for our and our licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ antibodies may depend on accurate and complete disclosure of technical characterizations of such antibodies, including biological sequence information. Any errors, omissions, inconsistencies, or later-developed scientific understanding that affects how such antibodies are characterized (including sequence information, epitope mapping, competition data, binding assays, or structure-function relationships) could impair our or our licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ ability to obtain, maintain, or enforce patents, could provide a basis for third-party challenges, or could necessitate claim narrowing. In addition, some patent applications that we or our licensors, licensees or collaborators have filed have not resulted, or may file in the future, might not result in issued patents because we or our licensors have abandoned, or may choose to abandon, those patent applications as changes in business and/or legal strategies dictated or may dictate.

We cannot assure you that all of the potentially relevant prior art relating to our patents and patent applications has been found. If such prior art exists, it can invalidate a patent or prevent a patent from issuing from a pending patent application. Even if patents do successfully issue and even if such patents cover our product candidates, third parties may initiate opposition, interference, re-examination, post-grant review, inter partes review, nullification or derivation action in court or before patent offices or similar proceedings challenging the validity, enforceability or scope of such patents, which may result in the patent claims being narrowed or invalidated. Our and our licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing

the technology claimed in such applications unless and until a patent issues from such applications, and then only to the extent the issued claims cover the technology.

Because patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing, and some remain so until issued, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors, licensees, or collaborators were the first to file any patent application related to a product candidate. Furthermore, if third parties have filed such patent applications on or before March 15, 2013, an interference proceeding in the United States can be initiated by such third parties to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by the patent claims of our applications. If third parties have filed such applications after March 15, 2013, a derivation proceeding in the United States can be initiated by such third parties to determine whether our invention was derived from theirs. Even where we have a valid and enforceable patent, we may not be able to exclude others from practicing our invention where the other party can show that they used the invention in commerce before our filing date or the other party benefits from a compulsory license. In addition, patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from its earliest U.S. filing date. Various extensions may be available, but the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents covering our product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired for a product, we may be open to competition from competitive medications, including biosimilar or generic medications.

Furthermore, 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. We expect to seek extensions of patent terms where these are available in any countries where we are prosecuting patents. This includes in the United States under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, which permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the expiration of the patent. However the applicable authorities, including the FDA and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) in the United States, and any equivalent foreign regulatory authority, may not agree with our assessment of whether such extensions are available and may refuse to grant extensions to our patents or may grant more limited extensions than we request. If this occurs, our competitors may take advantage of our investment in development and clinical trials by referencing our clinical and preclinical data and launch their product earlier than might otherwise be the case.

We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.

Filing, prosecuting, enforcing and defending patents on product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our or our licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ intellectual property rights may not exist in some countries outside the United States or may be less extensive in some countries than in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Consequently, we and our licensors, licensees or collaborators may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our and our licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ inventions in all countries outside the United States or from selling or importing products made using our and our licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our and our licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we and our licensors, licensees or collaborators have patent protection but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our product candidates, and our and our licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology, which could make it difficult for us and our licensors, licensees or collaborators to stop the infringement of our and our licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our and our licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our and our licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our and our licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our and our licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our and our licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us or our licensors, licensees or collaborators. We or our licensors, licensees or collaborators may not prevail in any lawsuits that we or our licensors, licensees or collaborators initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful.

Furthermore, the European patent litigation landscape has changed with the advent of the Unified Patent Court (“UPC”), which may allow third parties to seek, or may allow us to obtain, certain forms of relief with pan-European effect. This could increase the risk that a single adverse decision could significantly narrow, invalidate, or render unenforceable one or more of our or our licensors’, licensees or collaborators’ European patents across multiple jurisdictions, or that we could be subject to injunctive relief affecting multiple markets, if subjected to the jurisdiction of the UPC.

Changes in patent law could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our product candidates.

As is the case with other biopharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involve technological and legal complexity, and obtaining and enforcing biopharmaceutical patents is costly, time-consuming, and inherently uncertain.

Patent reform legislation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our and our licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our or our licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ issued patents. On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the “AIA”) was signed into law. The AIA includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation.

An important change introduced by the AIA is that, as of March 16, 2013, the United States transitioned to a “first-to-file” system for deciding which party should be granted a patent when two or more patent applications are filed by different parties claiming the same invention. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO after that date but before us could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by the third party. This will require us to be cognizant going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application, but circumstances could prevent us from promptly filing patent applications on our inventions.

Among some of the other changes introduced by the AIA are changes that limit where a patentee may file a patent infringement suit and providing opportunities for third parties to challenge any issued patent in the USPTO. This applies to all of our U.S. patents, even those issued before March 16, 2013. Because of a lower evidentiary standard in USPTO proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in United States federal courts necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a district court action. Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district court action. The AIA and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents.

Moreover, future and recent past changes in the patent laws in the U.S. and abroad could impact or could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our and our licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our or our licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ issued patents, which could have an impact on our business and financial conditions. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rendered decisions in several patent cases such as Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., BRCA1- & BRCA2-Based Hereditary Cancer Test Patent Litig., Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, and Amgen v. Sanofi either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our and our licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ ability to obtain patents in the future, these type of changes in the patent laws have created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on decisions by Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our and our licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ ability to obtain new patents or to enforce existing patents and patents that we and our licensors, licensees or collaborators may obtain in the future.

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 non-compliance with these requirements.

Periodic maintenance and annuity 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 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. Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. If we or our licensors, licensees or collaborators fail to maintain the patents and patent applications covering our product candidates, our competitors might be able to enter the market, which would have an adverse effect on our business.

Our reliance on third parties requires us to share our trade secrets, which increases the possibility that a competitor will discover them or that our trade secrets will be misappropriated or disclosed.

Because we collaborate with various collaborators on the development and commercialization of one or more of our product candidates and because we rely on third parties to manufacture our product candidates, we must, at times, share trade secrets with them. We seek to protect our wholly owned technology in part by entering into confidentiality agreements and, if applicable, material transfer agreements, consulting agreements or other similar agreements with our advisors, employees, third party contractors and consultants prior to disclosing proprietary information. These agreements typically limit the rights of the third parties to use or disclose our confidential information, including our trade secrets. Despite the contractual provisions employed when working with third parties, the need to share trade secrets and other confidential information increases the risk that such trade secrets become known by our competitors, are inadvertently incorporated into the technology of others, or are disclosed or used in violation of these agreements. Given that our proprietary position is based, in part, on our know-how and trade secrets, a competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets or other unauthorized use or disclosure would impair our competitive position and may have an adverse effect on our business.

In addition, these agreements typically restrict the ability of our advisors, employees, third party contractors and consultants to publish data potentially relating to our trade secrets, although our agreements may contain certain limited publication rights. For example, any academic institution that we may collaborate with in the future may be granted rights to publish data arising out of such collaboration, provided that we are notified in advance and given the opportunity to delay publication for a limited time period in order for us to secure patent protection of intellectual property rights arising from the collaboration, in addition to the opportunity to remove confidential or trade secret information from any such publication. Our existing collaborative research and development programs may require us to share trade secrets under the terms of our research and development collaborations or similar agreements. Despite our efforts to protect our trade secrets, our competitors may discover our trade secrets through breach of our agreements with third parties, independent development or publication of information by any of our third party collaborators. A competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets would impair our competitive position and have an adverse impact on our business.

We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our intellectual property, which could be expensive, time-consuming and unsuccessful and have an adverse effect on the success of our business.

Third parties may infringe our or our licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ patents or misappropriate or otherwise violate our or our licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ intellectual property rights. In the future, we or our licensors, licensees or collaborators may initiate legal proceedings to enforce or defend our or our licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ intellectual property rights to protect our or our licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ trade secrets or to determine the validity or scope of intellectual property rights we own or control. Also, third parties may initiate legal proceedings against us or our licensors, licensees or collaborators to challenge the validity or scope of intellectual property rights we own or control. These proceedings can be expensive and time-consuming, and many of our or our licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ adversaries in these proceedings may have the ability to dedicate substantially greater resources to prosecuting these legal actions than we or our licensors, licensees or collaborators. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent owned by or licensed to us is invalid or unenforceable, or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our or our licensors’, licensees’ or

collaborators’ patents do not cover the technology in question. Furthermore, an adverse result in any litigation or administrative proceeding could put one or more of our or our licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ patents at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable or interpreted narrowly.

Accordingly, despite our or our licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ efforts, we or our licensors, licensees or collaborators may not prevent third parties from infringing upon or misappropriating intellectual property rights we own or control, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States. In addition, litigation and administrative proceedings could result in substantial costs and diversion of management resources, which could harm our business and financial results.

Within and outside of the United States, there has been a substantial amount of litigation and administrative proceedings regarding patent and other intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical industry including opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review or interference proceedings, or other preissuance or post-grant proceedings. Such proceedings may be provoked by third parties or by us or our licensors, licensees or collaborators to protect or enforce our or our licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ patents or patent applications. Additionally, third party preissuance submission of prior art to the USPTO or other foreign jurisdictions may jeopardize the issuance or scope of our or our licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ patent applications. An unfavorable outcome in any such proceedings could require us or our licensors, licensees or collaborators to cease using the related technology, or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us or our licensors, licensees or collaborators a license on commercially reasonable terms or at all, and we could be forced to stop commercializing our product candidates. Even if we or our licensors, licensees or collaborators obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us or our licensors, licensees or collaborators.

In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our or our licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates. Even if we successfully defend such litigation or proceeding, we may incur substantial costs, and it may distract our management and other employees. We could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees, if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent.

Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have an adverse effect on the price of shares of our common stock.

If we breach the license agreements related to our product candidates, we could lose the ability to continue the development and commercialization of our product candidates.

Our commercial success depends upon our ability, and the ability of our licensors, licensees and collaborators, to develop, manufacture, market and sell our product candidates and use our and our licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ wholly owned technologies without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. A third party may hold intellectual property, including patent rights that are important or necessary to the development of our products. As a result, we may enter into license agreements in the future with others in order to advance our existing or future research or allow commercialization of our existing or future product candidates. These licenses may not provide exclusive rights to use such intellectual property and technology in all relevant fields of use and in all territories in which we may wish to develop or commercialize our technology and product candidates in the future. In addition, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with Centessa, which relates to our product candidate, ANB101, and is subject to certain obligations thereunder. If we fail to comply with the obligations under any such agreement, including payment and diligence terms, our licensors may have the right to terminate these agreements, in which event we may not be able to develop, manufacture, market or sell any product that is covered by these agreements or may face other penalties under the agreements. Such an occurrence could adversely affect the value of the product candidate being developed under any such agreement. Termination of these agreements or reduction or elimination of our rights under these agreements may result in our having to negotiate new or reinstated agreements, which may not be available to us on equally favorable terms, or at all, or cause us to lose our rights under these agreements, including our rights to intellectual property or technology important to our development programs.

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

If disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain any future licensing arrangements on acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates.

Third parties may initiate legal proceedings against us alleging that we infringe their intellectual property rights, or we may initiate legal proceedings against third parties to challenge the validity or scope of intellectual property rights controlled by third parties, the outcome of which would be uncertain and could have an adverse effect on the success of our business.

Third parties may initiate legal proceedings against us or our licensors, licensees or collaborators alleging that we or our licensors, licensees or collaborators infringe their intellectual property rights or we or our licensors, licensees or collaborators may initiate legal proceedings against third parties to challenge the validity or scope of intellectual property rights controlled by third parties, including in oppositions, interferences, reexaminations, post-grant reviews, inter partes reviews or derivation proceedings in the United States or other jurisdictions. These proceedings can be expensive and time-consuming, and many of our or our licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ adversaries in these proceedings may have the ability to dedicate substantially greater resources to prosecuting these legal actions than we or our licensors, licensees or collaborators.

Parties making claims against us may obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize one or more of our product candidates. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of management and employee resources from our business. An unfavorable outcome could require us or our licensors, licensees or collaborators to cease using the related technology, to cease developing or commercializing our product candidates or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us or our licensors, licensees or collaborators a license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we or our licensors, licensees or collaborators obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us or our licensors, licensees or collaborators. In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees, if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing our product candidates or force us to cease some of our business operations, which could harm our business.

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, including our senior management, were previously employed at universities or at other biopharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Some of these employees executed proprietary rights, non-disclosure and non-competition agreements in connection with such previous employment. 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 we or these employees have used or disclosed confidential information or 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.

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 or sustain damages. Such intellectual property rights could be awarded to a third party, and we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to commercialize our technology or products, which license could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. Such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we successfully prosecute or defend against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and distract management.

Our inability to protect our confidential information and trade secrets would harm our business and competitive position.

In addition to seeking patents for some of our technology and products, we also rely on trade secrets, including unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information, to maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect these trade secrets, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to them, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties. We also enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees and consultants. Despite these efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. 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 both within and outside the United States may be less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. Furthermore, if a competitor lawfully obtained or independently developed any of our trade secrets, we would have no right to prevent such competitor from using that technology or information to compete with us, which could harm our competitive position. Additionally, if the steps taken to maintain our trade secrets are deemed inadequate, we may have insufficient recourse against third parties for misappropriating the trade secret.

If we do not obtain protection under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments and similar foreign legislation for extending the term of patents covering each of our product candidates, our business may be harmed.

Depending upon the timing, duration and conditions of FDA marketing approval of our product candidates, one or more of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (the “Hatch-Waxman Amendments”). The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent term extension of up to five years for a patent covering an approved product as compensation for the effective patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, we may not receive an extension if we fail to apply within applicable deadlines, fail to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise fail to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the length of the extension could be less than we request. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or the term of any such extension is less than we request, the period during which we can enforce our patent rights for that product will be shortened, and our competitors may obtain approval to market competing products sooner. As a result, our revenue from applicable products could be reduced, possibly materially.

Risks Related to Managing Growth, Operations and Macroeconomic Conditions

We must attract and retain highly skilled employees in order to succeed.

To succeed, we must recruit, retain, manage and motivate qualified clinical, scientific, technical and management personnel, and we face significant competition for experienced personnel. This is especially critical as we ramp up our hiring needs entering into later-stage product development of our product candidates. If we do not succeed in attracting and retaining qualified personnel, particularly at the management level, it could adversely affect our ability to execute our business plan, harm our operating results and adversely affect our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates. In particular, we believe that our future success is highly dependent upon the contributions of our senior management, as well as our senior scientists. The loss of services of any of these individuals, who all have at-will employment arrangements with us, could delay or prevent the successful development of our product pipeline, completion of our planned clinical trials or the commercialization of our product candidates, if approved. Further, any additional obligations of our senior management team that result in connection with the proposed separation of our business into two independent, publicly traded companies, may result in operational disruptions, and our business may be harmed as a result.

Many of the other biotechnology companies that we compete against for qualified personnel have greater financial and other resources, different risk profiles and a longer history in the industry than we do. They also may provide more diverse opportunities and better chances for career advancement. Some of these characteristics may be more appealing to high-quality candidates than what we have to offer. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain high-quality personnel, the rate and success at which we can discover and develop product candidates and our business will be limited.

We expect to expand our development and regulatory capabilities, and as a result, we may encounter difficulties in managing our growth, which could disrupt our operations.

We expect to experience growth in the number of our employees and the scope of our operations, particularly in the areas of product candidate development and growing our capability to conduct clinical trials. To manage our anticipated future growth, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems, expand our facilities and continue to recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Due to our limited financial resources and the limited experience of our management team in managing a company with such anticipated growth, we may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations or recruit and train additional qualified personnel. The expansion of our operations may lead to significant costs and may divert our management and business development resources. Any inability to manage growth could delay the execution of our business plans or disrupt our operations.

Our internal computer systems, or those of our third-party collaborators or other service providers, may fail or suffer security breaches and cyber-attacks, which could result in a material disruption of our development programs.

We are increasingly dependent on information technology systems, infrastructure and data to operate our business. In the ordinary course of our business, we collect, store, process and transmit large amounts of confidential and sensitive information. It is critical that we do so in a secure manner to maintain the confidentiality, integrity and availability of such information. We have established physical, electronic and organizational measures to safeguard and secure our systems which are designed to prevent data compromise, and rely on commercially available systems, software, tools and monitoring to provide security for our information technology systems and the processing, transmission and storage of our information. We have also outsourced elements of our information technology infrastructure, resulting in a number of third-party vendors that may or could have access to our information. Despite the implementation of security measures, any of the internal technology systems belonging to us, our collaborators or our third party service providers are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, bugs, worms, malware, hacking, supply chain attacks and vulnerabilities, distributed denial-of-service attacks, credential stuffing or harvesting, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failure. Any system failure, accident or security breach that causes interruptions in our own, in collaborators’ or in third party service providers’ operations could result in a material disruption of our drug discovery and development programs. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed or future clinical trials could result in delays in our or our collaborators’ regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs in order to recover or reproduce the lost data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach results in a loss or damage to our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential, sensitive or proprietary information, we may incur liability as a result, our drug discovery programs and competitive position may be adversely affected, and the further development of our product candidates may be delayed. Furthermore, we may incur additional costs to remedy the damages caused by these disruptions or security breaches.

Our system protections may be ineffective or inadequate, or we could be impacted by software bugs or other technical malfunctions, as well as employee error or malfeasance. Additionally, laws and regulations regarding privacy and data protection are evolving, and it is possible that they may be interpreted and applied in a manner that is inconsistent with our data handling safeguards and practices that could result in fines, lawsuits, and other penalties, and significant changes to our or our collaborators or third party service providers’ business practices and products and service offerings. To the extent that the measures we or our collaborators or third-party service providers have taken prove to be insufficient or inadequate, we may become subject to litigation, breach notification obligations, or regulatory or administrative sanctions, which could result in significant fines, penalties, damages, harm to our reputation, or loss of customers. While we have not experienced any material losses as a result of any system failure, accident or security breach to date, we have been the subject of certain phishing attempts in the past. 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, whether due to a loss of our trade secrets or other proprietary information or other similar disruptions. Additionally, a party who circumvents our security measures could, among other effects, appropriate proprietary data, cause interruptions in our operations, or expose our collaborators to hacks, viruses, and other disruptions. 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. In addition, while we maintain cybersecurity insurance coverage, we cannot be sure that such coverage will be adequate or sufficient to compensate for any losses associated with such events, that such coverage will continue to be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or that such coverage will pay future claims. The development and maintenance of our information technology systems, controls and processes is costly and requires ongoing monitoring and updating as technologies change and efforts to overcome security measures become increasingly sophisticated.

Our operations, or the third parties upon whom we depend, are vulnerable to interruption by fire, earthquake, power loss, telecommunications failure, terrorist activity, health epidemics or pandemics and other events beyond our control, which could harm our business.

Our facilities are located in San Diego, California, which is a seismically active region, and has also historically been subject to wildfires and electrical blackouts as a result of a shortage of available electrical power. We have not undertaken a systematic analysis of the potential consequences to our business and financial results from a major earthquake, fire, power loss, terrorist activity, health epidemics or pandemics or other disasters, including those resulting from or amplified by climate change, and do not have a recovery plan for such disasters. In addition, we do not carry sufficient insurance to compensate us for actual losses from interruption of our business that may occur, and any losses or damages incurred by us could harm our business. We maintain multiple copies of each of our antibody sequences and electronic data records, most of which we maintain at our headquarters. If our facilities were impacted by a seismic or wildfire event, we could lose some, or all, of our antibody sequences, which would have an adverse effect on our ability to perform our obligations under our collaborations and discover new targets.

Furthermore, integral parties in our supply chain are geographically concentrated and operating from single sites, increasing their vulnerability to natural disasters or other sudden, unforeseen and severe and/or material disruptions. If such an event were to affect the parties integral to our supply chain, it could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Risks Related to Ownership of Our Common Stock

The market price of our stock has been and may continue to be volatile, and you could lose all or part of your investment.

The trading price of our common stock may be highly volatile and subject to wide fluctuations in response to various factors, some of which we cannot control. In addition to the factors discussed in this “Risk Factors” section and elsewhere in this Annual Report, these factors include:

In addition, the stock market in general, and the Nasdaq Global Select Market and biotechnology companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies. Broad market and industry factors may negatively affect the market price of our common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance. In the past, following periods of volatility in the overall market and the market price of a particular company’s securities, securities class action litigation has often been instituted against these companies. We have been subject to securities litigation in the past, and any future securities litigation could result in substantial costs and a diversion of our management’s attention and resources. The realization of any of the above risks or any of a broad range of other risks, including those described in this “Risk Factors” section, could have a dramatic and adverse impact on the market price of our common stock.

We have broad discretion in the use of the net proceeds from our public offerings and may not use them effectively.

Our management has broad discretion in the application of the net proceeds from our public offerings, and you will be relying on the judgment of our management regarding the application of these net proceeds. Our management might not apply the net proceeds from our public offerings in ways that ultimately increase the value of your investment. If we do not invest or apply the net proceeds from our public offerings in ways that enhance stockholder value, we may fail to achieve expected financial results, which could cause our stock price to decline.

We may be subject to securities litigation, which is expensive and could divert management attention.

The market price of our common stock is volatile and, in the past, companies that have experienced volatility in the market price of their stock have been subject to securities class action litigation. We have been, and may in the future be, the target of this type of litigation. Regardless of the outcome, future litigation against us could result in substantial costs and divert our management’s attention from other business concerns, which could seriously harm our business.

The requirements of being a public company may strain our resources, divert management’s attention, and affect our ability to attract and retain additional executive management and qualified board members.

We are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Protection Act, as well as rules adopted, and to be adopted, by the SEC and the Nasdaq Global Select Market. Our management and other personnel devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives. In addition, changing laws, regulations, and standards relating to corporate governance and public disclosure are creating uncertainty for public companies, increasing legal and financial compliance costs, and making some activities more time consuming. We intend to continue to invest resources to comply with evolving laws, regulations, and standards, and this investment may result in increased general and administrative expenses and a diversion of management’s time and attention. If our efforts to comply with new laws, regulations, and standards differ from the activities intended by regulatory or governing bodies due to ambiguities related to their application and practice, regulatory authorities may initiate legal proceedings against us and our business may be adversely affected. For example, we expect these rules and regulations to make it more difficult and more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, and we may be required to incur substantial costs to maintain sufficient coverage. We cannot predict or estimate the amount or timing of additional costs we may incur to respond to these and future requirements. The impact of these requirements could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified persons to serve on our Board of Directors, our Board committees or as executive officers.

In addition, we are required to maintain internal control over financial reporting and to report any material weaknesses in such internal control. Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires that we evaluate and determine the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting and provide a management report on our internal controls on an annual basis. If we have material

weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting, we may not detect errors on a timely basis and our financial statements may be materially misstated. While we have compiled the systems, processes and documentation necessary to comply with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, we will need to maintain and enhance these processes and controls as we grow, and we may require additional management and staff resources to do so. Additionally, even if we conclude our internal controls are effective for a given period, we may in the future identify one or more material weaknesses in our internal controls, in which case our management will be unable to conclude that our internal control over financial reporting is effective. Regardless of compliance with Section 404, any failure of our internal control over financial reporting could have a material adverse effect on our reported operating results and harm our reputation. Internal control deficiencies could also result in a restatement of our financial results.

Future sales and issuances of our common stock or rights to purchase common stock, including pursuant to our equity incentive plans, could result in additional dilution of the percentage ownership of our stockholders and could cause our stock price to fall.

We expect that significant additional capital may be needed in the future to continue our planned operations, including conducting clinical trials, commercialization efforts, expanded research and development activities and costs associated with operating a public company. To raise capital, we may sell common stock, convertible securities or other equity securities in one or more transactions at prices and in a manner we determine from time to time. If we sell common stock, convertible securities or other equity securities, investors may be materially diluted. We also have registered all shares of common stock that we may issue under our equity incentive plans or that are issuable upon exercise of outstanding options, or upon vesting of outstanding awards. These shares can be freely sold in the public market upon issuance and once vested, subject to volume limitations applicable to affiliates. If any of these additional shares are sold, or if it is perceived that they will be sold, in the public market, the market price of our common stock could decline. Such sales may also result in material dilution to our existing stockholders, and new investors could gain rights, preferences and privileges senior to the holders of our common stock. In November 2024, we entered into an open market sales agreement with TD Securities (USA) LLC (“TD Cowen”), under which we may offer and sell shares of our common stock up to, an aggregate offering of $100.0 million through TD Cowen as our sales agent.

Our disclosure controls and procedures may not prevent or detect all errors or acts of fraud.

We are subject to the periodic reporting requirements of the Exchange Act. We designed our disclosure controls and procedures to reasonably assure that information we must disclose in reports we file or submit under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to management and recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the rules and forms of the SEC. We believe that any disclosure controls and procedures or internal controls and procedures, no matter how well-conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met.

These inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in decision-making can be faulty and that breakdowns can occur because of simple error or mistake. Additionally, controls can be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more people or by an unauthorized override of the controls. Accordingly, because of the inherent limitations in our control system, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected.

We do not intend to pay dividends on our common stock, so any returns will be limited to the value of our stock.

We have never declared or paid any cash dividend on our common stock. We currently anticipate that we will retain future earnings for the development, operation and expansion of our business and do not anticipate declaring or paying any cash dividends for the foreseeable future. Any return to stockholders will therefore be limited to the appreciation of their stock.

Our cash and investments could be adversely affected if the financial institutions in which we hold our cash and investments fail.

We regularly maintain cash balances at third party financial institutions in excess of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insurance limit. Further, if we enter into a credit, loan or other similar facility with a financial institution, certain covenants included in such facility may require as security that we keep a significant portion of our cash with the institution providing such facility. If a depository institution where we maintain deposits fails or is subject to adverse conditions in the financial or credit markets, we may not be able to recover all, if any, of our deposits, which could adversely impact our operating liquidity and financial performance.

Provisions in our restated certificate of incorporation, restated bylaws and Delaware law might discourage, delay or prevent a change in control of our company or changes in our management and, therefore, depress the market price of our common stock.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, (“Restated Certificate”) and second amended and restated bylaws (“Restated Bylaws”) contain provisions that could depress the market price of our common stock by acting to discourage, delay or prevent a change in control of our company or changes in our management that the stockholders of our company may deem advantageous. These provisions, among other things:

In addition, Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”) may discourage, delay or prevent a change in control of our company. Section 203 of the DGCL imposes certain restrictions on mergers, business combinations and other transactions between us and holders of 15% or more of our common stock.

The exclusive forum provisions in our organizational documents may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or any of our directors, officers, or employees, or the underwriters of any offering giving rise to such claim, which may discourage lawsuits with respect to such claims.

Our Restated Certificate, to the fullest extent permitted by law, provides that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware is the exclusive forum for: any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf; any action asserting a breach of fiduciary duty; any action asserting a claim against us arising pursuant to the DGCL, our Restated Certificate, or our Restated Bylaws; or any action asserting a claim that is governed by the internal affairs doctrine. This exclusive forum provision does not apply to suits brought to enforce a duty or liability created by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or Exchange Act. It could apply, however, to a suit that falls within one or more of the categories enumerated in the exclusive forum provision.

This choice of forum provision may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or any of our directors, officers, or other employees, or the underwriters of any offering giving rise to such claims, which may discourage lawsuits with respect to such claims. Alternatively, if a court were to find the choice of forum provisions contained in our Restated Certificate to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions, which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Section 22 of the Securities Act creates concurrent jurisdiction for federal and state courts over all claims brought to enforce any duty or liability created by the Securities Act or the rules and regulations thereunder. Our Restated Bylaws provide that the federal district courts of the United States of America will, to the fullest extent permitted by law, be the exclusive forum for resolving any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act, or the Federal Forum Provision, including for all causes of action asserted against any defendant named in such complaint. For the avoidance of doubt, this provision is intended to benefit and may be enforced by us, our officers and directors, the underwriters to any offering giving rise to such complaint, and any other professional entity whose profession gives authority to a statement made by that person or entity and who has prepared or certified any part of the documents underlying the offering. Our decision to adopt a Federal Forum Provision followed a decision by the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware holding that such provisions are facially valid under Delaware law. While federal or other state courts

may not follow the holding of the Delaware Supreme Court or may determine that the Federal Forum Provision should be enforced in a particular case, application of the Federal Forum Provision means that suits brought by our stockholders to enforce any duty or liability created by the Securities Act must be brought in federal court and cannot be brought in state court, and our stockholders cannot waive compliance with the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder. Section 27 of the Exchange Act creates exclusive federal jurisdiction over all claims brought to enforce any duty or liability created by the Exchange Act or the rules and regulations thereunder. In addition, neither the exclusive forum provision nor the Federal Forum Provision applies to suits brought to enforce any duty or liability created by the Exchange Act. Accordingly, actions by our stockholders to enforce any duty or liability created by the Exchange Act or the rules and regulations thereunder must be brought in federal court, and our stockholders cannot waive compliance with the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder.

Any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring or holding any interest in any of our securities shall be deemed to have notice of and consented to our exclusive forum provisions, including the Federal Forum Provision. These provisions may limit a stockholders’ ability to bring a claim, and may result in increased costs for a stockholder to bring such a claim, in a judicial forum of their choosing for disputes with us or our directors, officers, other employees or agents, which may discourage lawsuits against us and our directors, officers, other employees or agents.

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or reports about our business, or if they issue an adverse or misleading opinion regarding our stock, our stock price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our common stock is influenced by the research and reports that industry or securities analysts publish about us or our business. If any of the analysts who cover us issue an adverse or misleading opinion regarding us, our business model, our intellectual property or our stock performance, or if our clinical trial results or operating results fail to meet the expectations of analysts, our stock price would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of us or fail to publish reports on us regularly, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which in turn could cause our stock price or trading volume to decline.

We plan to use our federal and state net operating loss (“NOL”) carryforwards to offset taxable income from revenue generated from operations or corporate collaborations. However, our ability to use NOL carryforwards to offset taxable income in future years could be limited.

We plan to use our current year operating losses to offset taxable income from any revenue generated from operations or corporate collaborations. To the extent we have taxable income in excess of current year operating losses, we plan to use our NOL carryforwards to offset income that would otherwise be taxable. As of December 31, 2025, we had federal NOLs of approximately $323.5 million. Of this, $38.6 million will expire beginning in 2031 through 2037, if not used to reduce income taxes payable in the future and $284.9 million carry forward indefinitely. We had state NOLs of approximately $69.8 million, which will expire beginning in 2028 through 2045. However, the benefits from the use of our NOL carryforwards may be limited under Section 382 of the Code, if we undergo an “ownership change,” which is generally defined as a greater than 50 percentage point change (by value) in our equity ownership by certain stockholders over a three-year period. We experienced ownership changes as defined by Section 382 of the Code during 2007, 2017 and 2021. As a result, as of December 31, 2025, there are $154.1 million of federal NOLs available to offset taxable income in future years without Section 382 limitation, while $169.4 million of federal NOLs are subject to annual limitations over future periods. State NOL and credit carryforwards may be similarly limited. Our use of federal and state NOLs could be further limited if we experience one or more ownership changes subsequent to December 31, 2025.

Under legislative changes made by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the U.S. federal NOLs incurred in 2018 and in future years may be carried forward indefinitely, but the ability to utilize such federal NOLs to offset taxable income is limited to 80% of our taxable income (without regard to certain deductions). Our significant state NOLs were generated in the state of California, which provides for a 20 year carry forward. State NOL carryforwards may be similarly limited by cumulative ownership changes. In addition, there may be periods during which the use of NOL carryforwards is suspended or otherwise limited at the state level, which could also impact our ability to utilize NOL carryforwards. Any such limitations on the use of our NOLs may result in greater tax liabilities than we would incur in the absence of such a limitation, and any increased liabilities could adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flow.

We are a smaller reporting company and may elect to comply with reduced public company reporting requirements applicable to smaller reporting companies, which could make our common stock less attractive to investors.

We are a “smaller reporting company,” meaning that we are not an investment company, an asset-backed issuer, or a majority-owned subsidiary of a parent company that is not a “smaller reporting company,” and have either: (i) a public float of less than $250 million as of our most recently completed second fiscal quarter or (ii) annual revenues of less than $100 million during the most recently completed fiscal year and (A) no public float or (B) a public float of less than $700 million as of our most recently completed second fiscal quarter. As a “smaller reporting company,” we are subject to reduced disclosure obligations in our SEC filings compared to other issuers, including with respect to disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements. Until such time as we cease to be a “smaller reporting company,” such reduced disclosure in our SEC filings may make it harder for investors to analyze our operating results and financial prospects.

If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result of any choices to reduce future disclosure we may make, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock price may be more volatile.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

None.

Item 1C. Cybersecurity

Although we are subject to ongoing and evolving cybersecurity threats, we are not aware of any material cybersecurity threats, that have materially affected or are reasonably likely to affect us, including our business strategy, results of operations or financial condition. For more information on our cybersecurity risks, see Item 1A “Risk Factors.”

Item 2. Properties

Our principal executive office is located at 10770 Wateridge Circle in San Diego, California, and consists of approximately 45,000 square feet of leased office and laboratory space under a lease for a term of 124 months, beginning on April 5, 2021. The terms of the Lease Agreement provide us with an option to extend the term of the lease for an additional five years, as well as a one-time option to terminate the lease after seven years with the payment of a termination fee. We use these facilities for our administrative, research and development and other activities.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

On November 20, 2025, we filed a Verified Complaint in Delaware Chancery Court, requesting a court declaration that TESARO, Inc. (“Tesaro”) has materially breached the parties’ Collaboration and Exclusive License Agreement (“Collaboration Agreement”) and that GSK, Tesaro’s corporate parent, has tortiously interfered with the Collaboration Agreement. We have requested that the court declare that we are entitled to all rights and remedies under the Collaboration Agreement.

While we had approached Tesaro to engage in good faith discussions to potentially resolve these claims, on November 20, 2025, Tesaro, without notice, initiated a lawsuit against us. Tesaro’s complaint includes a request for a declaration that it has not breached the Collaboration Agreement and for an injunction prohibiting AnaptysBio from terminating the Collaboration Agreement. Tesaro also alleges that AnaptysBio has materially breached the agreement, entitling Tesaro to exercise certain rights and remedies under the agreement. Tesaro’s claim for breach is predicated on an allegation that AnaptysBio improperly alleged that Tesaro had breached the Collaboration Agreement, which allegedly caused an anticipatory breach of contract. Through that claim, we believe that Tesaro seeks to improperly punish us for and restrain us from exercising our legal rights under the Collaboration Agreement in violation of Delaware’s anti-SLAPP statute. We believe that Tesaro’s claims are entirely without merit and have moved to dismiss the anticipatory breach claim.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures

Not applicable.

PART II

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

Trading Symbol and Holders

Our common stock has been listed on the Nasdaq Global Select market under the symbol “ANAB” since January 26, 2017. As of February 27, 2026, we had approximately seven holders of record of our common stock. This number does not include beneficial owners whose shares were held in street name.

Dividend Policy

We have never declared or paid cash or stock dividends on our common stock. Following the proposed separation of our company into two separate, publicly traded companies, expected to occur in 2026 (and which would be completed through a stock dividend), our Board of Directors may make a determination to declare dividends on our common stock at some point in the future, depending on our financial condition, operating results, capital requirements, general business conditions and other factors that our Board of Directors may deem relevant.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

In November 2025, our Board of Directors approved a common stock repurchase program authorizing $100.0 million in repurchases, which supplemented the previous $75.0 million authorization approved in March 2025. During the year ended December 31, 2025, we purchased 3.4 million shares at a cost of $68.6 million under this program. At December 31, 2025, approximately $106.4 million remained available for future stock repurchases under the repurchase program. The stock repurchase program expires on March 31, 2026.

The following table contains information with respect to repurchases made by us during the three months ended December 31, 2025:

Item 6. Reserved

Not applicable.

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

You should read the following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations together with the historical consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto included in Part II, Item 8—Consolidated Financial Statements and Supplementary Data of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. This discussion and other sections of this Annual Report contain forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties, such as our plans, objectives, expectations, intentions, and beliefs. Our actual results could differ materially from those discussed in these forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include, but are not limited to, those identified below and those discussed in the section entitled “Risk Factors” included in Part I, Item 1A of this Annual Report. You should also carefully read “Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements”.

Overview

We are a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on delivering innovative immunology therapeutics for autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. Our clinical-stage pipeline includes rosnilimab, a selective pathogenic T cell depleter, for which we completed a Phase 2b trial for the treatment of moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (“RA”), ANB033, a CD122 antagonist, in a Phase 1b trial for celiac disease (“CeD”) and eosinophilic esophagitis (“EoE”), and ANB101, a BDCA2 modulator, in a Phase 1a trial. We also discovered and out-licensed, in financial collaborations, multiple therapeutic antibodies, including a PD-1 antagonist (Jemperli (dostarlimab-gxly) or “Jemperli”) to GSK and an IL-36R antagonist (imsidolimab) to Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Vanda”). We currently recognize revenue from milestones and royalties achieved under our immuno-oncology collaboration with GSK and license and transition services revenue from our collaboration with Vanda.

Intention to Separate Company

In September 2025, we announced that our board of directors (“Board of Directors”) approved plans to explore separating our business into two independent, publicly traded companies. One company is expected to hold and continue to manage the financial collaboration for Jemperli from GSK and for imsidolimab from Vanda, with a focus on protecting and returning value of the royalties to its shareholders. The other company is expected to be a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on the development and potential commercialization of innovative therapeutics for autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, including rosnilimab, ANB033 and ANB101. Upon completion of the proposed separation, which we expect to complete in the second quarter of 2026, we intend to launch the clinical-stage biotechnology company with adequate capital to fund operations for at least twelve months after the date the proposed separation is completed. While the proposed separation is anticipated to be a taxable event, we are focused on minimizing overall corporate and shareholder-level taxes across the entire transaction. Completion of the proposed separation is subject to final approval by our Board of Directors and other customary conditions, including the effectiveness of a registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”).

Our Wholly Owned Clinical-Stage Pipeline

Our antibodies are in development to treat inflammatory diseases. We believe these molecules have potential applicability across a broad range of autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, including in gastroenterology, rheumatology, dermatology, respiratory, and other therapeutic areas.

Rosnilimab

Rosnilimab is an IgG1 antibody that directly targets pathogenic T cells, such as activated Tph/Tfh and T effector cells, in the periphery or inflamed tissue. These T cells, when activated, proliferate and migrate, and secrete the inflammatory cytokines that are the drivers of autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. Rosnilimab is designed to selectively deplete pathogenic T cells in both inflamed tissue and the periphery while sparing non-pathogenic T cells, including naïve T cells, to preserve overall immune function and restore immune homeostasis. This drives specific immunological outcomes, such as a reduction in T cell proliferation, migration and cytokine secretion, and a reduction of plasma cell generation and autoantibody levels. We announced top-line data from a healthy volunteer Phase 1 trial of rosnilimab in November 2021 that supported advancement of rosnilimab into subsequent patient trials. A total of 144 subjects were enrolled in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled healthy volunteer Phase 1 trial, where single ascending dose (“SAD”) cohorts received subcutaneous (“SC”) or intravenous (“IV”) single doses of rosnilimab up to 600mg or placebo, while multiple ascending dose (“MAD”) cohorts received four weekly subcutaneous doses of rosnilimab ranging up to 400mg or placebo. Rosnilimab was generally well-tolerated and no dose-limiting toxicities were observed. Rosnilimab demonstrated a sustained systemic exposure and dose-proportionality with an estimated two-week half-life for subcutaneous and IV routes of administration.

In February 2025, we announced initial data, which was subsequently updated in June 2025, from rosnilimab’s randomized, placebo-controlled, global 424-patient, Phase 2b clinical trial for moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis. Patients were randomized to receive either 100mg of subcutaneous rosnilimab every four weeks (Q4W), 400mg Q4W, 600mg every two weeks, or placebo.

During the three-month placebo-controlled period, the trial achieved its primary endpoint by observing the reduction of disease activity using the disease activity score, 28 joints (DAS-28) C-Reactive Protein (“CRP”) score, as well as ACR20 response (an accepted Phase 3 registrational endpoint), at Week 12 in all three doses of rosnilimab compared to placebo. Rosnilimab achieved its secondary endpoint by demonstrating statistical significance in at least one dose and numerical superiority at all doses, including once monthly administration, on ACR20, ACR50 and with respect to the clinical disease activity index (“CDAI”) low disease activity (“LDA”) score at Week 12. Specifically, at Week 12, ACR20 achieved statistical significance at 100 mg (p < 0.05), 400 mg (p < 0.01), and 600 mg (p < 0.001); ACR50 achieved statistical significance at 600 mg (p < 0.05); and CDAI LDA achieved statistical significance at 100 mg (p < 0.05) and 400 mg (p < 0.01).

Following completion of the Week 14 visit, 69% (or 220 of the 318) rosnilimab-treated patients who achieved CDAI LDA at this timepoint continued their assigned treatment through six months in a blinded, all-active treatment period. At six months, rosnilimab results demonstrated deepening of responses through six months on CDAI LDA, CDAI remission and ACR70 and independent of prior treatments, including anti-TNFα, anti-IL6R or JAK inhibitors. Importantly, this was particularly observed in b/tsDMARD-experienced patients for the 400mg Q4W and 600mg Q2W doses, showing a dose response relative to the 100mg Q4W dose. Furthermore, Week 28 clinical responses across multiple measures, including CDAI LDA, mean CDAI, mean DAS28-CRP and ACR50/70, were durable off-drug through at least three months after the last rosnilimab dose, results which we believe suggest the potential for extended dosing (e.g., Q8W/Q12W) after initial monthly dosing. Due to the trial design, max response rates for rosnilimab have not yet been observed as strict criteria at Week 14, which prevented additional patients with meaningful improvement from continuing treatment in the trial.

A table summarizing the results for primary and secondary endpoints follows:

*p<0.05

**p<0.01

***p<0.001

Clinical outcomes were further substantiated by objective translational data. An approximately 50% reduction in the mean CRP from baseline, an objective measure of inflammation, was observed through Week 28 in rosnilimab patients who entered the all-active period. Additionally, translational blood and synovial biopsy biomarker data showed differentiated and consistent immunological impact with on-target pharmacological activity in rosnilimab patients that was not observed on placebo. In blood, rosnilimab demonstrated rapid, deep and sustained reductions of approximately 90% in pathogenic T cells (largely Tph, Tph and Teff cells), and an increase in total Tregs. Additionally, synovial biopsies of the most impacted joint taken at baseline and after six weeks showed a deep reduction of approximately 90% in pathogenic T cells (largely Tph cells) at the 400mg Q4W and 600mg Q2W doses, showing a dose response relative to the 100mg Q4W dose.

Consistent with prior rosnilimab studies, all rosnilimab doses through end-of-trial follow up at week 38 demonstrated no treatment-related serious adverse events (“SAEs”), malignancies, anaphylaxis or systemic hypersensitivity, and a low incidence of injection site reactions. Most adverse events (“AEs”) were mild to moderate in severity. Less than 2% of patients in the trial discontinued rosnilimab due to an AE, including only one patient after three months for a moderate headache treated with over-the-counter pain medication. Non-treatment related SAEs observed were consistent with known RA patient history and comorbidities.

ANB033

ANB033 is an antagonist of CD122, the common beta subunit shared by the IL-15 and IL-2 receptors. IL-15 and IL-2 signaling mediate the proliferation and survival of subsets of CD8+ and CD4 T+ cells, NK cells, as well as ILC2s. ANB033 is an antibody designed with an optimal epitope and affinity to CD122 that inhibits IL-15 and IL-2 signaling through both the intermediate affinity IL-2 receptor (comprised of CD122 and the common gamma subunit, CD132) and the high affinity IL-2 receptor (comprised of CD122, CD132 and the alpha receptor subunit for IL-2, CD25) expressed by activated CD4 Th1 and Th2 T cells as well as ILC2. Antagonizing CD122 has the potential to achieve and maintain remission of inflammation through the reduction of disease-causing cytolytic CD8 T cell subsets, including intraepithelial lymphocytes, NK cells and reducing inflammatory cytokine secretion by activated CD4+ Th1 and Th2 cells, as well as ILC2 cells.

We announced top-line data from a healthy volunteer Phase 1a trial of ANB033 in October 2025 that demonstrated no safety concerns at any dose and a rapid and sustained pharmacokinetic (“PK”) profile. A total of 80 subjects were enrolled in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled healthy volunteer Phase 1 trial, where SAD cohorts received SC or IV single doses of ANB033 or placebo, while MAD cohorts received four weekly SC doses of ANB033. ANB033 was generally well-tolerated and no SAE discontinuations or dose-limiting toxicities were observed in the study. ANB033 demonstrated an estimated two-to-three week half-life and full receptor occupancy for SC and IV routes of administration. A dose response was observed on relevant PD biomarkers. We observed responsive effects with both IV and SC modes of administration, with a 70-75% reduction in CD122-expressing CD8 T cells, which did not result in a meaningful reduction in overall CD8 T cells. Additionally, treatment with ANB033 effectively eliminated all CD122-expressing NK cells, but the overall NK cell count remained above the levels needed to maintain immune competency as not all NK cells in humans express CD122. No overall reductions were observed on regulatory T cell counts in the peripheral blood.

We are conducting a randomized placebo-controlled 60-patient, global Phase 1b trial cohort of ANB033 in CeD. This trial will assess both a cohort of patients with baseline villus height to crypt depth (“Vh:Cd”) ratio greater than 2.0 in a gluten-challenge to assess prevention of further mucosal damage, as well as a cohort of patients with a Vh:Cd ratio less than 2.0, who will not be subjected to a gluten-challenge, to assess the ability to heal mucosal damage in symptom-controlled patients.  The two distinct cohorts will enroll 30 patients each, randomized 1:1 between one dose level of subcutaneously administered ANB033 dose and placebo. Key assessments include safety and tolerability, efficacy assessments including the change in Vh:Cd ratio, IEL counts, and PROs, such as the Celiac Disease Symptom Diary (“CDSD”), as well as PK and immunogenicity.

We are also conducting a randomized placebo-controlled 50-patient, global Phase 1b trial cohort of ANB033 in EoE. This trial will enroll adults who have histologic evidence of EoE with peak eosinophil count ≥15/hpf at the screening endoscopy and with symptomatic dysphagia. Key assessments include safety and tolerability, efficacy assessments including the Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (“DSQ”) and peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophilic count (“eos/hpf”), as well as PK and immunogenicity.

ANB101

ANB101 is a blood dendritic cell antigen 2 (“BDCA2”) modulator antibody that targets plasmacytoid dendritic cells (“pDCs”) and inhibits interferon secretion and modulates antigen presentation for the treatment of autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. BDCA2 is a molecule specifically expressed on pDCs, a class of immune cells which, while found in relatively small numbers in healthy individuals, are enriched in patients with a variety of inflammatory diseases, that is critical to the regulation of toll-like receptor signaling and interferon secretion. pDCs are a key upstream node in the inflammatory cascade that serve as a bridge between innate and adaptive immunity. They have been shown to be prolific secretors of type I interferons, which drive activation of a variety of downstream cell types including T cells and monocytes. Together with their ability to present antigens to the adaptive immune system, this creates a pro-inflammatory environment for the establishment and perpetuation of autoimmune pathology. BDCA2 has been implicated in the pathophysiology of systemic lupus erythematosus (“SLE”), where there exists mechanistic clinical proof of concept for pDC modulation.

We initiated a Phase 1 clinical trial of ANB101 in healthy volunteers in March 2025 and the trial is ongoing. ANB101 preclinical data suggests it is a more potent antibody compared to litifilimab with a longer half-life that results in a deeper and more durable PD effect on pDC depletion.

Collaborative Programs

GSK Collaboration

Multiple company-discovered antibody programs have been advanced to preclinical and clinical milestones under our collaborations. Our collaborations include an immuno-oncology-focused collaboration with GSK.

Under the GSK Agreement, a Biologics License Application (“BLA”) for our most advanced partnered program, which is a PD-1 antagonist antibody called Jemperli (dostarlimab), was approved by the FDA in April 2021 for the treatment of advanced or recurrent deficient mismatch repair endometrial cancer (“dMMREC”). In February 2023, the FDA granted full approval for this indication (from an accelerated approval). In addition, in April 2021, the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) granted conditional marketing authorization in the European Union (“EU”) for Jemperli for use in women with mismatch repair deficient (“dMMR”)/microsatellite instability-high (“MSI-H”) recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer who have progressed on or following prior treatment with a platinum containing regimen. A second FDA approval was received in August 2021 for Jemperli in pan-deficient mismatch repair tumors (PdMMRT). In July 2023, the FDA approved Jemperli in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of adult patients with dMMR MSI-H primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. In December 2023, the EMA approved Jemperli plus chemotherapy for dMMR/MSI-H primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. In August 2024, the FDA approved Jemperli plus chemotherapy for all adult patients with primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. In January 2025, the EMA approved Jemperli plus chemotherapy for this same indication. In October 2025, GSK terminated the TIM-3 antagonist antibody development program under our existing collaboration, and all rights to the TIM-3 antagonist antibody will be reverted to us in the near future.

For the year ended December 31, 2025, GSK reported $1.1 billion in sales for Jemperli, a greater than 80% sales growth when compared to $598.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2024.

Vanda Collaboration

On January 31, 2025, we entered into an Exclusive License Agreement (the “Vanda License Agreement”) with Vanda pursuant to which we granted to Vanda an exclusive, global license for the development and commercialization of imsidolimab (IL-36R antagonist mAb), which has completed two registration-enabling global Phase 3 trials, GEMINI-1 and GEMINI-2, evaluating the safety and efficacy of imsidolimab in patients with generalized pustular psoriasis (“GPP”).

In December 2025, Vanda announced the submission of a BLA to the U.S. FDA for imsidolimab in GPP. The FDA accepted the BLA filing for imsidolimab in GPP in February 2026 with a target action date of December 12, 2026.

Pursuant to the terms of the Vanda License Agreement, we received an upfront payment of $10.0 million and a $5.0 million payment for existing drug supply. We are also eligible to receive a 10% royalty on net sales, as well as the following milestones under the Vanda License Agreement:

For more information about these collaborations, see “— Collaborations” included in Part I, Item 1 of this Annual Report.

Financial Overview

As of December 31, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $772.6 million, primarily as a result of losses incurred since our inception in 2005. We expect to continue to incur net operating losses for at least the next several years as we advance our products through clinical development, seek regulatory approval, prepare for and, if approved, proceed to, commercialization, expand our operations and facilities and grow in new and existing markets, territories and industries.

For our discussion related to the results of our operations and liquidity and capital resources for fiscal year ended December 31, 2024 compared to the year ended December 31, 2023, please refer to Part II, Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024.

Collaboration Revenue

We have not generated any revenue from product sales. Our revenue has been derived from amortization of upfront license payments, research and development funding, milestone and royalty payments under collaboration and license agreements with our collaborators. From inception through December 31, 2025, we have recognized $581.1 million in revenue from our collaborators.

Collaboration and Exclusive License Agreement with GSK

In March 2014, we entered into a Collaboration and Exclusive License Agreement (the “GSK Agreement”) with TESARO, Inc. (“Tesaro”), an oncology-focused biopharmaceutical company now a part of GSK (Tesaro and GSK are hereinafter referred to, collectively, as “GSK”). Currently, under the GSK Agreement, GSK is developing Jemperli (dostarlimab) as a monotherapy and in combination with additional therapies, for various solid tumor indications.

For Jemperli, the remaining development program under the GSK Agreement, we are eligible to receive milestone payments if a European regulatory submission and approval in a second indication is achieved. On October 23, 2020, Amendment No. 3 to the GSK Agreement (the “GSK Amendment No. 3”) was agreed to by both parties to permit GSK to conduct development and commercialization in combination with any third party molecules of Zejula, an oral, once-daily poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor (“Zejula”). Under GSK Amendment No. 3, we were granted increased royalties upon sales of Jemperli, equal to 8% of net sales (as defined in the GSK Agreement) below $1.0 billion, 12% of net sales between $1.0 billion and $1.5 billion, 20% of net sales between $1.5 billion and $2.5 billion and 25% of net sales above $2.5 billion. Unless earlier terminated by either party upon specified circumstances, the GSK Agreement will terminate, with respect to each specific developed product, upon the later of the 12th anniversary of the first commercial sale of the product or the expiration of the last to expire of any patent.

In October 2021, we signed a royalty monetization agreement (“Jemperli Royalty Monetization Agreement”) with Sagard Healthcare Royalty Partners, LP (“Sagard”). Under the terms of the Jemperli Royalty Monetization Agreement, we received $250.0 million in exchange for royalties and milestones payable to us under our GSK collaboration on annual global net sales of Jemperli.

In May 2024, we entered into an amendment to the Jemperli Royalty Monetization Agreement, Amendment No. 1 (the “Jemperli Amendment”) under which we sold additional receivables to Sagard in exchange for $50.0 million. The Jemperli Amendment includes all Jemperli sales, including any product containing Jemperli, whether or not such product constitutes a combination product, and the threshold amounts of aggregate Jemperli royalties and milestones to be received by Sagard under the Jemperli Amendment is either $600.0 million if received by the end of March 31, 2031, or $675.0 million if received thereafter. Once either of these thresholds are met, the Jemperli Royalty Monetization Agreement and the Jemperli Amendment will expire, resulting in us regaining all subsequent Jemperli royalties and milestones. As of December 31, 2025, Sagard has accrued approximately $250.0 million in royalties and milestones. For more information see Note 5 — Sale of Future Royalties in the accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements included in Part II, Item 8, “Consolidated Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The GSK Agreement, as amended, expires when no further payments are due to us, unless earlier terminated. Either party may terminate the GSK Agreement, as amended, in the event of an uncured material breach by the other party. GSK may terminate the GSK Agreement, as amended, at any time upon 90 days’ prior written notice to us.

Milestones under the GSK Agreement are as follows:

In connection with the 2020 Amendment, in October 2020 GSK agreed, under the terms of a settlement agreement (the “GSK Settlement Agreement”), to pay us a royalty on all GSK net sales of Zejula starting January 1, 2021. Under the GSK Settlement Agreement, the royalty is paid at a rate of 1% but is subject to reduction due to royalties paid to third parties, with a minimum royalty payable under the GSK Settlement Agreement of 0.5% of global net sales of Zejula. The current effective royalty rate is 0.5%. In September 2022, we signed a royalty monetization agreement (the “Zejula Royalty Monetization Agreement”) with a wholly owned subsidiary of DRI Healthcare Trust (“DRI”) to monetize all of our future royalties on global net sales of Zejula under the GSK Settlement Agreement. Under the terms of the Zejula Royalty Monetization Agreement, we received $35.0 million in exchange for all royalties payable by GSK to us under the GSK Settlement Agreement on global net sales of Zejula starting in July 2022.

We are currently party to litigation with GSK with respect to the GSK Agreement. See Item 3. “Legal Proceedings” for additional information.

Research and Development Expense

Research and development expenses consist of costs associated with our research and development activities, preclinical and clinical development of our programs, and manufacturing. Our research and development expenses include:

We may also incur in-process research and development expense as we acquire assets from other parties. Acquired in-process research and development costs that have no alternative future use are immediately expensed.

We expense research and development costs as incurred. We account for nonrefundable advance payments for goods and services that will be used in future research and development activities as expense when the service has been performed or when the goods have been received.

We are conducting research and development activities primarily on inflammation programs. We have a research and development team that conducts antibody characterization, translational studies, IND-enabling preclinical studies, and clinical development. We conduct some of our preclinical activities internally and plan to rely on third parties, such as CROs and CMOs, for the execution of certain of our research and development activities, such as in vivo toxicology and pharmacology studies, drug product manufacturing, and clinical trials.

We expect our research and development expenses to be consistent for the foreseeable future as we continue to advance our product candidates.

General and Administrative Expense

General and administrative expenses consist primarily of salaries and related benefits, including stock-based compensation for our executive, finance, legal, business development, human resource, and support functions. Other general and administrative expenses include allocated facility-related costs not otherwise included in research and development expenses, travel expenses, transaction costs, and professional fees for auditing, tax, and legal services.

Non-Cash Interest Expense for the Sale of Future Royalties

Non-cash interest expense for the sale of future royalties consists of interest related to the liability for the sale of future royalties, as well as the amortization of debt issuance costs. We impute interest on the unamortized portion of the liability for the sale of future royalties using the effective interest method and record interest expense based on timing of the payments over the term of the Jemperli Royalty Monetization Agreement and the Zejula Royalty Monetization Agreement (the “Royalty Monetization Agreements”). Our estimate of the interest rate under the arrangements is based on forecasted royalty and milestone payments expected to be made over the life of the agreements.

Interest Income

Interest income consists primarily of interest earned on our short-term and long-term investments and is recognized when earned.

Net Operating Loss and Research and Development Tax Credit Carryforwards

Since inception, we have accumulated net operating losses (“NOLs”) in all years except December 31, 2024, 2022, 2015 and 2014, in which we generated taxable income primarily attributable to our collaboration agreement with GSK, our Zejula Royalty Monetization Agreement in 2022, and the requirement to capitalize and amortize R&D expenditures for tax purposes in 2022 and 2024. While we utilized NOLs in 2024, 2022, 2015 and 2014, we continue to incur losses and therefore continue to have a valuation allowance against our net deferred tax assets due to the uncertainty of the realization of such assets.

As of December 31, 2025, we had federal and state NOL carryforwards of $323.5 million and $69.8 million, respectively. The federal and state NOLs generated prior to 2018 will begin to expire in 2031 and 2028, respectively, unless previously utilized. The federal NOL includes $284.9 million of net operating losses generated in 2018 and after. Federal net operating losses generated in 2018 and after carryover indefinitely and may generally be used to offset up to 80% of future taxable income. As of December 31, 2025, we had federal and state research tax credit carryforwards of approximately $24.0 million and $21.1 million, respectively. The federal research tax credit carryforwards will begin to expire in 2041 and the state research tax credits will begin to expire in 2039.

We experienced ownership changes as defined by Section 382 of the Code during 2007, 2017 and 2021. As a result, as of December 31, 2025, there are $154.1 million of federal NOLs available to offset taxable income in future years without Section 382 limitation, while $169.4 million of federal NOLs are subject to annual limitations over future periods. State NOL and credit carryforwards may be similarly limited.

The above NOL carryforward and the federal and state research tax credit carryforwards may be subject to an annual limitation under section 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), and similar state provisions if we experience one or more ownership changes which would limit the amount of NOL and tax credit carryforwards that can be utilized to offset future taxable income and tax, respectively. In general, an ownership change as defined by Section 382 and 383, results from transactions increasing ownership of certain stockholders or public groups in the stock of the corporation by more than 50 percentage points over a three-year period.

Critical Accounting Policies and Use of Estimates

Our management’s discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations are based on our financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“U.S. GAAP”). The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make judgments and estimates that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues, and expenses and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities in our financial statements. We base our estimates on historical experience, known trends and events, and various other factors that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions. On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our judgments and estimates in light of changes in circumstances, facts, and experience.

While our significant accounting policies are described in more detail in the notes to our financial statements appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, we believe the following accounting policies used in the preparation of our financial statements require the most significant judgments and estimates.

Revenue Recognition

Revenue is recognized in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 606, which utilizes five basic steps to determine whether revenue can be recognized and to what extent: (i) identify the contract with a customer; (ii) identify the performance obligation; (iii) determine the transaction price; (iv) allocate the transaction price; and (v) determine the recognition period.

Performance Obligations. We evaluate promised goods or services on a contract-by-contract basis to determine whether each deliverable represents a good or service that is distinct or has the same pattern of transfer as other deliverables. A promised good or service is considered distinct if the customer can benefit from the good or service independently of other goods/services either in the contract or that can be obtained elsewhere, without regard to contract exclusivity, and the entity’s promise to transfer the good or service to the customer is separately identifiable from other promises in the contact. If the promised good or service is not considered distinct, we combine such deliverables and account for them as a single performance obligation. We allocate the consideration to each performance obligation at the inception of the arrangement based on the stand alone selling price.

Our performance obligations may include the following:

We recognize consideration allocated to a performance obligation as the performance obligation is satisfied, and the determination as to whether consideration is recognized over time or at a point in time is made upon contract inception. For our collaboration agreements, this is generally over the period in which research and development services have been performed. There were no new agreements with performance obligations entered into during the year ended December 31, 2025.

Transaction Price. Our collaboration and license agreements generally include both fixed and variable consideration. Fixed payments, such as those for upfront fees are included in the transaction price at contract value, while variable consideration such as reimbursement for research and development services, milestone and royalty payments are estimated and then evaluated for constraints upon inception of the contract and evaluated on a quarterly basis thereafter. Research and development services are updated for actual invoices. Given the nature of our agreements, milestones are estimated using the most likely amount and are evaluated on a quarterly basis. Upon commercialization, royalty payments are recognized in the period incurred.

Research and Development Expenses

As part of the process of preparing our financial statements, we are required to estimate research and development costs incurred during the period, which impacts the amount of accrued expenses and prepaid balances related to such costs as of each balance sheet date. This process involves reviewing open contracts and purchase orders, communicating with our personnel and service providers to identify services that have been performed on our behalf and estimating the level of service performed and the associated cost incurred for the service when we have not yet been invoiced or otherwise notified of the actual cost. The majority of our service providers invoice us monthly in arrears for services performed or when contractual milestones are met. We make estimates of our accrued expenses as of each balance sheet date based on facts and circumstances known to us at that time. We periodically confirm the accuracy of our estimates with the service providers and make adjustments if necessary. The significant estimates in our accrued research and development expenses include the costs incurred for services performed by our vendors in connection with research and development activities for which we have not yet been invoiced.

We base our expenses related to research and development activities on our estimates of the services received and efforts expended pursuant to quotes and contracts with vendors that conduct research and development on our behalf. The financial terms of these agreements are subject to negotiation, vary from contract to contract and may result in uneven payment flows. There may be instances in which payments made to our vendors will exceed the level of services provided and result in a prepayment of the research and development expense. In accruing service fees, we estimate the time period over which services will be performed and the level of effort to be expended in each period. If the actual timing of the performance of services or the level of effort varies from our estimate, we adjust the accrual or prepaid accordingly. Advance payments for goods and services that will be used in future research and development activities are expensed when the activity has been performed or when the goods have been received rather than when the payment is made.

Although we do not expect our estimates to be materially different from amounts actually incurred, if our estimates of the status and timing of services performed differ from the actual status and timing of services performed, it could result in us reporting amounts that are too high or too low in any particular period. To date, there have been no material differences between our estimates of such expenses and the amounts actually incurred.

Sale of Future Royalties

We treated the sale of future revenue from the Jemperli Royalty Monetization Agreement, as amended by the Jemperli Amendment, with Sagard and the Zejula Royalty Monetization Agreement with DRI as a liability related to the sale of future royalties on the balance sheet. The recorded upfront proceeds, net of transaction costs, will be amortized under the effective interest rate method over the estimated life of the related expected royalty stream. The liability and the related interest expense are based on our current estimates of future royalties and certain milestones expected to be paid over the life of the agreement. We will periodically assess the expected royalty and milestone payments and to the extent our future estimates or timing of such payments are materially different than our previous estimates, we will prospectively recognize related interest expense. Royalty revenue will be recognized as earned on net sales of Jemperli and Zejula, and we will record the royalty payments made as a reduction of the liability when paid. As such payments are made, the balance of the liability will be effectively repaid over the life of the Jemperli Royalty Monetization Agreement and the Zejula Royalty Monetization Agreement. For further discussion of the sale of future revenue, refer to Note 5 — Sale of Future Royalties in the accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements included in Part II, Item 8, “Consolidated Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements

For further information on recently issued accounting pronouncements, see Note 2 — Summary of Significant Accounting Policies in the accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements included in Part II, Item 8, “Consolidated Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Results of Operations

Collaboration Revenue

Collaboration revenue was $234.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2025, compared to $91.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2024. A comparison of collaboration revenue is as follows:

Collaboration revenue during the year ended December 31, 2025 increased $143.3 million compared to the year ended December 31, 2024 due to an increase of $85.0 million in Jemperli sales milestones, $48.6 million increase in Jemperli and Zejula royalty revenue and $9.7 million increase in Vanda license and transition services revenue.

We expect that any collaboration revenue we generate will continue to fluctuate from period to period as a result of the timing and amount of milestones and royalties from our existing collaborations.

Research and Development Expenses

Research and development expenses were $136.0 million during the year ended December 31, 2025 compared to $163.8 million during the year ended December 31, 2024, for a decrease of $27.8 million. The decrease is primarily attributable to a $21.6 million decrease in clinical expenses and a decrease of $12.0 million in outside services for manufacturing expenses, offset by a $5.5 million increase in salaries and related costs, including a $2.3 million increase in stock compensation expense and a decrease of $0.6 million in recruiting costs, and a $0.9 million increase in other research and development expenses.

We do not track fully burdened research and development costs separately for each of our product candidates. We review our research and development expenses by focusing on external development and internal development costs. External development expenses consist of costs associated with our external preclinical and clinical trials, including pharmaceutical development and manufacturing. Included in preclinical and other unallocated costs are external corporate overhead costs that are not specific to any one program. Internal costs consist of salaries and wages, stock-based compensation and benefits, which are not tracked by product

candidate as several of our departments support multiple product candidate research and development programs. The following table summarizes the external costs attributable to each program and internal costs:

General and Administrative Expenses

General and administrative expenses were $50.7 million during the year ended December 31, 2025 compared to $42.4 million during the year ended December 31, 2024, for an increase of approximately $8.3 million. The increase is primarily due to a $5.2 million increase in legal expenses due to the GSK lawsuit and activity related to the separation of the business, a $2.5 million increase in transaction costs related to our Vanda License Agreement, a $1.0 million increase in personnel costs, and a $0.8 million net increase in other general and administrative expenses, offset by a $0.9 million decrease in market research costs and a $0.3 million decrease in stock compensation expense.

We expect that our general and administrative expenses may increase for the foreseeable future as we incur costs associated with stock compensation expense, legal, auditing and filing fees, additional insurance premiums, investor relations expenses and general compliance and consulting expenses.

Non-Cash Interest Expense for the Sale of Future Royalties

Interest expense was $79.9 million during the year ended December 31, 2025 compared to $50.1 million during the year ended December 31, 2024. The increase of $29.8 million in non-cash interest expense is primarily due to an increase in the GSK Jemperli sales which changed the expected timing for Sagard to be paid per the Jemperli Royalty Monetization Agreement.

Interest Income

Interest income was $13.5 million during the year ended December 31, 2025 compared to $19.8 million during the year ended December 31, 2024. The decrease of $6.3 million in interest income was primarily related to our short-term and long-term investments. The decrease in interest income is primarily due to the decrease in investment balances, as well as the timing of sales, maturities and purchases of our investments.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

From our inception through December 31, 2025, we have received an aggregate of $1.4 billion to fund our operations, which included $752.4 million from the sale of equity securities, $335.0 million from the sale of future royalties, $324.2 million from our collaboration agreements and $19.1 million from venture debt. As of December 31, 2025, we had $311.6 million in cash, cash equivalents and investments.

In addition to our existing cash, cash equivalents and investments, we are eligible to earn milestone and other contingent payments for the achievement of defined collaboration objectives and certain regulatory and sales-based events, and royalty payments under our collaboration agreements, including the GSK Agreement, the GSK Settlement Agreement, and the Vanda License Agreement. Our ability to earn these milestone and contingent payments and the timing of achieving these milestones is primarily

dependent upon the outcome of our collaborators’ research and development and sales-based activities. Our rights to payments under our collaboration agreements are our only committed external source of funds.

In October 2021, we signed the Jemperli Royalty Monetization Agreement with Sagard. Pursuant to this transaction, we received a $250.0 million payment upon closing in December 2021, in exchange for Jemperli royalties due to us on annual commercial sales below $1.0 billion and certain future milestones starting in October 2021. In May 2024, we entered into the Jemperli Amendment under which we sold additional receivables to Sagard in exchange for $50.0 million. The Jemperli Amendment includes all Jemperli sales, including any product containing Jemperli, whether or not such product constitutes a combination product, and the threshold amounts of aggregate Jemperli royalties and milestones to be received by Sagard under the Jemperli Amendment is either $600.0 million if received by the end of March 31, 2031, or $675.0 million if received thereafter. Once either of these thresholds are met, the Jemperli Royalty Monetization Agreement and the Jemperli Amendment will expire, resulting in us regaining all subsequent Jemperli royalties and milestones. We treated the sale of future revenue from the Jemperli Royalty Monetization Agreement (as amended) with Sagard as debt, which will be amortized under the effective interest rate method over the estimated life of the related expected royalty stream.

The proceeds received from Sagard of $250.0 million and $50.0 million were recorded as a liability, net of transaction costs of $0.4 million and $0.1 million, which will be amortized over the estimated life of the arrangement using the effective interest rate method. The aggregate future estimated payments, less the $299.5 million, net of proceeds, will be recognized as non-cash interest expense over the life of the agreement. Royalty and milestone revenue will be recognized as earned on net sales of Jemperli, and these payments to Sagard will be recorded as a reduction of the liability when paid. As such payments are made to Sagard, the balance of the liability will be effectively repaid over the life of the Jemperli Royalty Monetization Agreement. For further discussion of the sale of future revenue, refer to Note 5 — Sale of Future Royalties in the accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements included in Part II, Item 8, “Consolidated Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

In November 2024, we entered into an open market sales agreement with TD Securities (USA) LLC (“TD Cowen”), under which we may offer and sell shares of our common stock up to, an aggregate offering of $100.0 million through TD Cowen as our sales agent. As of December 31, 2025, we had sold no shares under this agreement.

In August 2024, we entered into an underwriting agreement with TD Cowen and Leerink Partners LLC as representatives to the several underwriters listed therein (the “Underwriters”), pursuant to which we issued and sold an aggregate of 2,750,498 shares of our common stock to the Underwriters, at an offering price of $36.50 per share. The net proceeds from these sales were approximately $93.9 million, net of underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses of $6.5 million, in the aggregate.

Funding Requirements

We may seek to obtain additional financing in the future through equity or debt financings or through collaborations or partnerships with other companies. If we are unable to obtain additional financing on commercially reasonable terms, our business, financial condition and results of operations will be materially adversely affected.

Our primary uses of capital are, and we expect will continue to be, third party clinical and preclinical research and development services, including manufacturing, laboratory and related supplies, compensation and related expenses, legal, patent and other regulatory expenses, and general overhead costs. We have entered into agreements with certain vendors for the provision of services, including services related to commercial manufacturing, that we are unable to terminate for convenience. Under such agreements, we are contractually obligated to make certain minimum payments to the vendors with the amounts to be based on the timing of the termination and the specific terms of the agreement.

Cash, cash equivalents and investments totaled $311.6 million as of December 31, 2025, compared to $420.8 million as of December 31, 2024. We believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and investments will fund our current operating plan for at least the next twelve months from the issuance of our consolidated financial statements. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our capital resources sooner than we expect. Additionally, the process of testing product candidates in clinical trials and seeking regulatory approval is costly, and the timing of progress and expenses in these trials is uncertain.

Cash Flows

The following table summarizes our cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024:

Operating Activities

Net cash provided by operating activities during the year ended December 31, 2025 was $19.7 million, primarily due to our net loss of $13.2 million, adjusted for addbacks for non-cash items of $113.6 million which includes stock-based compensation, amortization of operating right-of-use assets, non-cash interest expense, income from marketable securities, and depreciation, offset by decreases in working capital of $80.7 million, which includes decreases related to accounts payable and other liabilities, and operating lease liabilities, partially offset by increases related to receivables from collaborative partners, and prepaid expenses and other assets.

Net cash used in operating activities during the year ended December 31, 2024 was $135.3 million, primarily due to our net loss of $145.2 million, adjusted for addbacks for non-cash items of $76.2 million which includes stock-based compensation, amortization of operating right-of-use assets, non-cash interest expense, and income from marketable securities, offset by decreases in in working capital of $66.3 million.

Investing Activities

Cash provided by investing activities during the year ended December 31, 2025 was $228.0 million, primarily due to the sale and maturities of investments of $424.5 million, offset by the acquisition of investments of $196.4 million and the purchases of property and equipment of approximately $0.1 million.

Cash provided by investing activities during the year ended December 31, 2024 was $95.4 million, primarily due to the sale and maturities of investments of $476.1 million, offset by the acquisition of investments of $380.4 million and the purchases of property and equipment of approximately $0.3 million.

Financing Activities

Cash used by financing activities during the year ended December 31, 2025 was $132.6 million, primarily related to $76.8 million for principal repayments of the liability for the sale of future royalties, $1.5 million for net share settlement of equity awards, $68.6 million paid for repurchases and retirements of common stock, offset by $14.3 million of cash received for the issuance of common stock.

Cash provided by financing activities during the year ended December 31, 2024 was $127.1 million, primarily related to $94.4 million of proceeds received from public offerings, net of underwriters’ fees, $50.0 million received for the sale of future royalties, $6.5 million of cash received for the issuance of common stock, offset by $15.2 million for repayments of the liability for the sale of future royalties, $7.5 million for net share settlement of equity awards, $0.5 million paid for repurchases and retirements of common stock excise tax, and $0.6 million payments for offering and debt issuance costs.

Contractual Obligations

We have entered into agreements with certain vendors for the provision of goods and services, which includes manufacturing services with contract manufacturing organizations and development services with contract research organizations. These agreements may include certain provisions for purchase obligations and termination obligations that could require payments for the cancellation of committed purchase obligations or for early termination of the agreements. The amount of the cancellation or termination payments vary and are based on the timing of the cancellation or termination and the specific terms of the agreement and therefore are cancellable contracts.

For further information related to our operating lease, see Note 10 — Commitments and Contingencies in the accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements included in Part II, Item 8, “Consolidated Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk

Interest Rate Risk

We hold certain financial instruments for which a change in prevailing interest rates may cause the principal amount of the marketable securities to fluctuate. Financial instruments that potentially subject us to significant concentrations of credit risk consist primarily of cash and cash equivalents, short-term and long-term investments. We invest our excess cash primarily in money market funds, commercial paper and debt instruments of financial institutions, corporations, U.S. government-sponsored agencies and the U.S. Treasury. The primary objectives of our investment activities are to ensure liquidity and to preserve principal while at the same time maximizing the income we receive from our marketable securities without significantly increasing risk. Additionally, we established guidelines regarding approved investments and maturities of investments, which are designed to maintain safety and liquidity. As of December 31, 2025, our investment portfolio includes cash, cash equivalents, and investments of $311.6 million that earn interest at market rates. Our investments held during the year were comprised of highly rated instruments such as money market funds, certificates of deposit, agency securities, commercial obligations and U.S. Treasury securities. As of December 31, 2025, the majority of these instruments had a maturity of less than a year. A hypothetical increase or decrease of 100 basis points on the interest rates of our investments would not have a material effect on the fair value of our investment portfolio and any losses would only be realized if we sold the investments prior to maturity.

Foreign Currency Exchange Risk

We conduct a portion of our business with CROs in currencies other than our U.S. dollar functional currency. These transactions give rise to monetary assets and liabilities that are denominated in currencies other than the U.S. dollar. The value of these monetary assets and liabilities are subject to changes in currency exchange rates from the time the transactions are originated until settlement in cash. Our foreign currency exposures are primarily concentrated in the euro, British pound, Australian dollar, and Canadian dollar. Both realized and unrealized gains or losses on the value of these monetary assets and liabilities are included in the determination of net income. We do not hedge our foreign currency exchange rate risk, however, we may do so in the future. As of December 31, 2025, we had no material accounts payable or receivable denominated in foreign currencies, and a hypothetical 10% change in foreign currency exchange rates applicable to our business would not have had a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

Inflation Risk

Inflation generally affects us by increasing our clinical trial and other operational costs. We do not believe that inflation has had a material effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations during the years ended December 31, 2025, 2024 or 2023.

Item 8. Consolidated Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

AnaptysBio, Inc.

Annual Report on Form 10-K

Index to Audited Consolidated Financial Statements

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Stockholders and Board of Directors

AnaptysBio, Inc.:

Basis for Opinion

These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. As part of our audits, we are required to obtain an understanding of internal control over financial reporting but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion.

Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the consolidated financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the consolidated financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

Critical Audit Matter

The critical audit matter communicated below is a matter arising from the current period audit of the consolidated financial statements that was communicated or required to be communicated to the audit committee and that: (1) relates to accounts or disclosures that are material to the consolidated financial statements and (2) involved our especially challenging, subjective, or complex judgments. The communication of a critical audit matter does not alter in any way our opinion on the consolidated financial statements, taken as a whole, and we are not, by communicating the critical audit matter below, providing a separate opinion on the critical audit matter or on the accounts or disclosures to which it relates.

Evaluation of Research and Development Costs

As discussed in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company has entered into various contracts with third parties to perform research and development, including clinical manufacturing. When billing terms under these contracts do not coincide with the timing of when work is performed, the Company makes estimates of the costs incurred by third parties during the period and the outstanding obligations to those third parties as of period end. Estimates of costs incurred during the period that are included in period-end prepaid or accrued expense balances are based on a number of factors, including the review of open contracts and purchase orders, communicating with personnel and service providers to identify services that have been performed on the Company’s behalf and estimating the level of service performed and the associated costs incurred for the service when the Company has not yet been invoiced or otherwise notified of the actual cost. Significant judgments and estimates are made by the Company in determining the costs incurred during the period that are included in prepaid or accrued expense balances at the end of each reporting period.

We identified the evaluation of research and development costs as a critical audit matter. Subjective auditor judgment was involved in evaluating the nature and extent of evidence available in evaluating certain assumptions and inputs that were used in estimating the degree of completion of research and development programs when the Company has not yet been invoiced or otherwise notified of the actual cost.

The following are the primary procedures we performed to address this critical audit matter. On a sample basis, we examined contracts, invoices, and third-party confirmations and compared them to the assumptions and inputs that are described above. We also examined certain invoices received after December 31, 2025 and evaluated whether services received prior to December 31, 2025 were included in the Company’s estimate of costs incurred as of December 31, 2025.

/s/ KPMG LLP

We have served as the Company’s auditor since 2009.

San Diego, California

March 3, 2026

AnaptysBio, Inc.

Consolidated Balance Sheets

(in thousands, except par value)